Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos
Jane and Forum: While I might quibble about the difference between dependent and adapted to fire, for example, I get the point if what Shevtsov means is that every single bit of life is an ecosystem or a subset of one. There is, however, a great difference between an assemblage of species that cannot shift for themselves, but as soon as the external influence (landscaping or a farm, for example) is removed, the maintained life-forms will revert to an ecosystem that is not dependent upon maintenance. Even after a volcano or an atomic explosion, for example, self-sufficient ecosystems eventually colonize such sites, without any help from culture. Further, the changes that occur in the absence of fire may well be due to its absence, but there is no requirement that their structure be maintained. WT - Original Message - From: Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 6:42 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Wayne and forum, Lots of ecosystems (prairies, chaparral, many pine forests, etc.) are dependent on fire or other types of disturbance to maintain their structure. How is this different from being dependent on humans? Jane On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Kristin and Ecolog: I hope I have not been misunderstood. I do not object to the study of species interactions and habitat conditions in agriculture; I am concerned, however, that the distinction between natural ecosystems and anthropogenic alterations of them. The distinction I believe useful, if not critical, is that between a system that is DEPENDENT upon external influence and displacement/destruction of indigenous ecosystems (e.g., plowing, planting and maintenance of monocultures and introduction of other organisms that did not co-evolve with them as a TREND. I certainly do recognize the value of the study of such phenomena, particularly when its trend is in the direction of preservation of genetic diversity, not its reduction. I do seriously question the habit of terming anthropogenic assemblages of species ecosystems, as they are quite distinguishable from natural ecosystems. I think scientists in general, and ecologists in particular, have a duty to do no harm, to pass knowledge along in a clear and directly honest fashion to the population at large. I think the distinction is CRUCIAL. If I am wrong in this, I look forward to being corrected with persuasive logic and evidence. WT - Original Message - From: Kristin Mercer mercer...@osu.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:35 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and agronomy Definition of agroecosystem Re: [ECOLO G-L] The Role of Ecos Dear Wayne, The definition you received from another ecologger is a good one. Given your concern about the term agroecosystems, I think the best way to understand agroecosystems is to see that they are connected to, but distinct from, the natural or urban or managed ecosystems around them. Just as savana may be surrounded by forests, agroecosystems can exist within a matrix of other kinds of ecosystems. So although parts of agroecology does study the effects of agriculture on natural ecosystems, it is certainly not limited to that perspectives. Studies of weed community dynamics, insect pest population genetics, nutrient cycling under various management practices (i.e., studies within the agroecosystem) all fall within agroecology. I would think that few agroecologists see themselves as promoting the business as usual agriculture or destruction and degredation. In fact, within the context of needing to grow food on our landscapes, I think most ESA members would be cheering agroecologists along. In that vein, the agroecology section of ESA is alive and well. Cheers, Kristin At 06:03 PM 2/3/2009, Wayne Tyson wrote: Ecolog: I received the following off-list response to my enquiry about the definition of agroecosystem: Agroecosystems are best understood as the unit of study of agroecology, which looks at agricultural production systems in terms of ecosystem prosperities: e.g. stability, resilience, disturbance regime, stocks and flows of nutrients and energy, and niche dynamics, etc. Look to Miguel Altieri for a thorough, scientifically based discussion of agroecology. Additionally, the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. I agree with the respondent that the wikipedia article on agroecology is more substantial and less vague than the one agroecosystems. Agro-ecology seems somewhat less of an oxymoron than agro-ecosystem. Certainly the study of ecosystems and the effects of agriculture upon them is legitimate, but it seems to me that the use of the term agro-ecosystem implies that the two are somehow interdependent or that agriculture is just
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Maiken and others, don't get me wrong. I am a strong proponent for using good science to inform our decision makers. I have presented or helped present statements along this line for many agency and legislative hearings and deliberations. Usually I find it most effective to present the science without advocating a particular action or decision. However, in many or most cases the best available science so obviously indicates what must be done that I don't have to advocate -- the science does it for me -- and the climate change/energy use issue is a prime example of this. Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Maiken Winter Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 23:43 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics, one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter
Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says with some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise that climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then the costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate change is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing countries. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Y'all: Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of circularity, the boy who cried wolf phenomenon might be on the opposite side of the clock diagram from crying in the wilderness, each on the other side of the vertical or midnight position, i.e., worlds apart in one sense, but in the apparent sense close together. While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) scientific, I have decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even if for the wrong reasons. It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of keystone or domino effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?) genius behind the carbon obsession? In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility of sufficient actual reduction (credits and other means of capitalizing upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming outside energy/mass cycles. That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter how wrong some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . WT The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline. --Raymond Gilmore - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of course, but one of the best examples of the
Re: [ECOLOG-L] GLOBAL PRECIP DATA FROM LAT. + LONG.
Once I was also looking for data and then Finland's Matti Tukiainen helped me: http://www.gaisma.com publishes data on not-easy to find places like small villages in Africa and other continents. His data are based on NASA information (Langley Research Center Atmospheric Science data center). He says that precipitation and wet days data are available at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/). I do not know comparative advantages and disadvantages of Tukianen's data compared to other sources; to me it was good because he had already summarized values. Edgardo Es agradable ser importante pero es más importante ser agradable Anónimo Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:49:45 -0800 From: sdve...@ucdavis.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] GLOBAL PRECIP DATA FROM LAT. + LONG. To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Check out Worldclim: http://www.worldclim.org/ Data is better for some regions (with more weather stations) than others. Sam Kevin Mueller wrote: I'm looking for a global database of monthly/annual precipitation and temperature that reports data using only latitude and longitude as coordinates. It would be something similar to the Prism database from Oregon State or Montana's Daymet but with data beyond the U.S. Any suggestions? Kevin Mueller Penn State University Intercollege Graduate Program in Ecology kem...@psu.edu -- Sam Veloz Postdoctoral Researcher Department of Environmental Science and Policy University of California, Davis sdve...@ucdavis.edu _ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=createwx_url=/friends.aspxmkt=en-us
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Research Assistantship in Integrated Pest Management
A graduate research assistantship at the PhD. level is available in the Invasive Plant Ecology Laboratory of Dr. Tarasoff at the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University. The successful applicant will lead an Integrated Pest Management project studying the use of the Wetblade^® (http://www.diamondmowers.com/) to control Canada thistle and common reed along roadways. The goals of the project are to reduce herbicide use, drift, applicator exposure and environmental contamination while improving invasive species control. As the project is experiment-based, field work will be required in the St.Paul/Minneapolis region. However, it is expected that the student will develop complementary greenhouse experiments. A background in forestry, botany, ecology, weed science, plant physiology or agronomy is desirable; as well as, the application of statistical methods. Proficiency in spoken and written English is a necessity. Michigan Tech is one of the Nation’s premier Forestry and Environmental Science Universities. The School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science has been ranked **fourth in the nation* http://www.academicanalytics.com/TopSchools/TopPrograms.aspx#9* for scholarly productivity among forestry schools, and *first in North America* http://saf.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2006/0104/0005/art5 based on citations per faculty member. Michigan Tech is located in the snowbelt (200” annual snowfall) of Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula on the south shore of Lake Superior. Michigan Tech is in the small town of Houghton, which was rated as one of the top 10 U.S. adrenaline outposts by National Geographic Adventure Magazine http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0107/trips_5.html and boasts excellent skiing, hiking, kayaking and mountain biking. Consideration of applications begins immediately and will continue until the position is filled. The ideal start dates are May 1 or September1, 2009. Benefits include a monthly stipend and tuition waiver. Interested applicants are encouraged to send a letter stating your interest in the program and a CV to Dr. Tarasoff via email at ctara...@mtu.edu. mailto:ctara...@mtu.edu. -- --- Catherine Tarasoff, PhD. – Assistant Professor Weed Science - Invasive Plant Ecology School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science Department of Biological Sciences 1400 Townsend Drive Michigan Technological University Houghton, MI 49931 906-487-2396 ctara...@mtu.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Gene Hannon's Comment About the Survey
I think Gene and Cheryl put it quite well. It all comes down to the simple fact that all systems and life/energy processes here on Earth are interconnected. A change in one affects others - sometimes in ways that are not immediately obvious. And because the interrelationships are so complicated, I believe in the precautionary principle. The overall system (planet) will adapt to any change and continue on, but because individual species (including homo sapiens) may only be able to adapt within certain thresholds, their survival is not assured. Cockroaches will see their way through the next epochs of global warming and global cooling. Species with the intelligence to understand the interconnections, their place in them, and their effects on them deserve their fate if they fail to act appropriately. I believe that ecologists and other scientists have an obligation to educate others, in whatever way they can, about the dangers of a short-term perspective and the importance of sustainable living and actions. Clearly, this is easier said than done in a culture where people either cannot, or chose not to, look beyond their next paycheck, the next budget cycle, or the next election. Steve Stephen P. Kunz Senior Ecologist Schmid Company, Inc. 1201 Cedar Grove Road Media, PA 19063-1044 phone: 610-356-1416 fax: 610-356-3629 _spk...@aol.com_ (mailto:spk...@aol.com) _www.schmidco.com_ (http://www.schmidco.com/) A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. - Aldo Leopold In a message dated 3/4/2009 12:23:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, csw...@whittier.edu writes: This friend speaks my mind. If you use the current calculators for water, carbon, or ecological footprint that are available on line, a college first year student sees the connection. I realize those calculators are sloppy and in many ways incorrect, but if I want to teach students about their impact on the world, I will use those calculators as a starting point. If we all lived on our own however many acre plot, it would not change the fact that humans use a disproportionate amount of resources whether in cities or in rural communities in developed countries. At the end of the day, the human footprint, a substitute for habitat loss, is not about cities, it is about the economic and political systems humans create and perpetuate. I think that ecologists should be activists, in our own lives, in our research, and in our classrooms where many of us labor to have the opportunity to do the research that beckons us. Cheryl Swift James Irvine Professor of Biology Whittier College Whittier, CA 90605 562-907-4273 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Gene Hannon Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 3:55 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Rob, I think we all agree with the importance of habitat preservation (species conservation, preserving ecosystem functions, etc). And I think we all are on the same page about the disproportionate tax on the environment that urban areas have compared to rural areas (or for that matter: developed countries vs less developed countries). Furthermore, I think we can all agree that there is a lot of hype related to most issues -including global climate change. But I feel it worth saying that it might be unproductive and imprudent (in my humble opinion) to make this problem into one of a false dichotomy: into either human habitat destruction or human climate warming. They are both worrisome. And they are both symptomatic of the same problem -a non sustainable life style (economy, or what have you); by me, you, us, them. Furthermore, while there are lots of anthropogenic (as well as non-anthropogenic) processes that result DIRECTLY in habitat destruction NOW, why not be concerned about those effects that will indirectly (and or directly) result in habitat destruction later? Such as our carbon foot print. But perhaps this is all circular. I guess I see this as a spin off of the chicken and the egg argument. If we truly did stop habitat destruction it probably means we are living sustainably, which might then cause carbon in the atmosphere to drop to or below 350 ppm (or some ideal value: see 350.org). Or we could save habitat, not live sustainably, and have weather patterns change ecological patterns and processes in a way that will result in those saved habitats being for a collection of species that are different than originally intended. Or we could destroy habitat, to make carbon neutral bioenergy, to live sustainably so that carbon in the atmosphere goes back down to 350 ppm, but species diversity and ecosystem processes still go to pot because we have destroyed habitat (i.e. the means
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
That is a reasoned response, IMHO. However! I see no evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and global warming is destructive. A lot of anecdotal hyperbole more directed at pseudoscientific social engineering than scientific inquiry. Where I live Hurricane Katrina did a lot of damage. We had no power for over a week. I hear people passionately insisting that Katrina was caused by global warming; there is no evidence of this, of course. Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such nonsense. The type of lifestyle we live, especially in urban modern centers, requires massive imports of energy, and the price is always paid by people in rural areas. People in urban centers need cheap food, so farmers must farm large tracts of land for low per unit return. We then charge farmers outrageous prices for things like education, for example. Same thing holds for energy. We want cheap energy from Louisiana and Kentucky. We then charge outrageous prices for things like banking and asset management. The most outrageously priced urban resource, entertainment, be it sports or movies or television is absolutely inconsequential when compared to rural resources such as food, energy, building materials and minerals, all which are taken at minimal cost. So it seems we want to drive the socio-economic status of the people of Appalachia, for example, down lower because we don't like coal, and want to enact policies to discourage and possibly eliminate the use of coal because we don't like CO2 in the air; lacking any solid scientific evidence that the CO2 does any damage, but go on taking the resource we want as cheaply as possible from people like those in Appalachia as suits our needs and prejudices. To my minds eye, it's just a furtherance of attacking the weak to sooth our guilt on these issues. We need a 20 dollar loaf of bread and 2 dollar DVDs more than we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Even the urban poor, who where I live seem to have no problem buying 20 dollar DVDs, would be better to transfer the wealth to farmers than movie producers...that's JMHO of course, and we'd be better off to use coal, but pay more for it, at the expense of lower costs to banking services and football tickets..again, JMHO. Higher cost translates to lower energy use. That's what we need. Anyone wants to put up windmills is also doing a good thing, IMHO. If my homeowners association allowed it, I'd have one in my yard, they aren't all that expensive. Rob Hamilton Gene Hannon gene.han...@gmail.com 3/3/2009 5:55 PM Rob, I think we all agree with the importance of habitat preservation (species conservation, preserving ecosystem functions, etc). And I think we all are on the same page about the disproportionate tax on the environment that urban areas have compared to rural areas (or for that matter: developed countries vs less developed countries). Furthermore, I think we can all agree that there is a lot of hype related to most issues *including global climate change. But I feel it worth saying that it might be unproductive and imprudent (in my humble opinion) to make this problem into one of a false dichotomy: into either human habitat destruction or human climate warming. They are both worrisome. And they are both symptomatic of the same problem *a non sustainable life style (economy, or what have you); by me, you, us, them. Furthermore, while there are lots of anthropogenic (as well as non-anthropogenic) processes that result DIRECTLY in habitat destruction NOW, why not be concerned about those effects that will indirectly (and or directly) result in habitat destruction later? Such as our carbon foot print. But perhaps this is all circular. I guess I see this as a spin off of the chicken and the egg argument. If we truly did stop habitat destruction it probably means we are living sustainably, which might then cause carbon in the atmosphere to drop to or below 350 ppm (or some ideal value: see 350.org). Or we could save habitat, not live sustainably, and have weather patterns change ecological patterns and processes in a way that will result in those saved habitats being for a collection of species that are different than originally intended. Or we could destroy habitat, to make carbon neutral bioenergy, to live sustainably so that carbon in the atmosphere goes back down to 350 ppm, but species diversity and ecosystem processes still go to pot because we have destroyed habitat (i.e. the means does not justify the end in this scenario). ETC. So really, it is not so much what the impending or
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!]
Dear Robert, You are absolutely right that habitat loss is one of the major problems of today. Focus on climate change is not because it is the only problem the world faces. There is a number of planetary boundaries that all will lead to catastrophic outcomes if we continue on our non-sustainable path. See: http://www.tallbergfoundation.org/T%C3%84LLBERGFORUM/T%C3%A4llbergForum2008/Exploringplanetaryboundaries/tabid/487/Default.aspx Habitat loss and climate change are just one of them. However, climate change is likely the one closest to irreversible tipping points, see http://researchpages.net/ESMG/people/tim-lenton/tipping-points/ The extreme challenge of avoiding such tipping points is that climate change is a symptom of our unsustainable way of living - in all areas, not just in the way we burn fossil fuels, but in how we overfish the oceans, destroy habitats, add chemicals to our groundwaters, etc pp. Stopping coal-fired power plants is absolutely essential to avoid passing tipping points in the climate system. But even that will not help if we continue to exploit the rest of the earth and destroy all natural habitats, poison the groundwater, I hope that by thinking and feeling through the climate crisis we learn to better understand our place on earth. BTW, the fact that the poor have to endure the worst effects of climate change although they least caused it, is a major issue in climate policies, and one of the huge issues that urgently needs to get resolved at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen this December. I don't know where you heard that the rich are supposed to be causing fewer emissions than the poor. Of course that's completely wrong. Just all the stuff we buy causes almost 1/3 of the CO2 emissions of the average German. For sure the rich buy and use up a lot more than the poor, no? I am also not sure where you get the information that effects of climate change are not extremely worrisome. Check out the IPCC 4'th assessment report (http://www.ipcc.ch/) from 2007. To appreciate what you read you need to know that recent research has demonstrated that the increase in global temperature, in CO2 concentration and in sea level rise, as well as the melting of the Arctic sea-ice and the disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet is as fast or faster than the most pessimistic models of the IPCC described. Because the IPCC report is outdated, there will be an emergency conference on climate science next week in Copenhagen (which I am luckily to be able to attend). You might want to check out its webpage (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/) to see the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for the increasing speed of climate change impacts that will be presented. For an interesting reading, also see: http://www.tallbergfoundation.org/Default.aspx?tabid=555 I will summarize my findings from the survey next week and send it to you all. Thanks for all the input! Maiken Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement. Rob Hamilton So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would
[ECOLOG-L] [NCSE] Help Free Holdren and Lubchenco nominations!
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Help Free Holdren and Lubchenco nominations!
According to The Washington Post and our friends at Climate Science Watch,
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has placed a hold on the confirmation of John
Holdren as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) and of Jane Lubchenco as the Administrator of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This technique is used
by senators to block or delay a presidential appointment. In this case
Senator Mendendez is reportedly holding up the nominations of these leading
scientists whose appointment was announced by then President-elect Obama in
mid-December (see http://ncseonline.org/Updates/cms.cfm?id=2862) due to a
completely unrelated matter dealing with Cuba policy.
NCSE contacted Senator Menendez's office on Tuesday and was told that they
were receiving lots of calls and emails on the topic, but they would not say
whether the Senator is holding up the nominations. NCSE told the Senator's
staffer that they should expect many, many more calls unless they release
the hold and that we would check back today before alerting our list. As of
this morning when NCSE called back, Senator Mendendez's office still was
unwilling to provide any information, other than to say that the Senator was
extremely committed to the environment and that they had received calls and
emails on the issue. Therefore we urge everyone who receives this message,
especially New Jersey residents to call, fax or email Senator Menendez TODAY
at phone 202.224.4744;
202.228.2197 fax; or email using the form at
http://www.menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Please also send an email to clim...@ncseonline.org to let us know that you
have contacted Senator Menendez and what response your received if any.
What you say matters much less than the volume of contacts the Senator
receives. A simple message to allow the nominations to proceed is
sufficient.
See below for more information from Climate Science Watch.
Thanks,
David E. Blockstein, Ph.D.
Executive Secretary,
Council of Environmental Deans and Directors
Senior Scientist
National Council for Science and the Environment
NEW ADDRESS 1101 17th St. NW #250
Washington DC 20036
202-207-0004 direct
202-530-5810 general
202-628-4311 fax
da...@ncseonline.org
www.ncseonline.org
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Thank you.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/senator_robert_mene
ndez_d_nj_delays_confirmation_of_john_holdren_and_jane_l/
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) delays confirmation of John Holdren and Jane
Lubchenco
Posted on Tuesday, March 03, 2009
The Washington Post reports
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/02/AR200903020
2425.html this morning that the long-awaited Senate confirmation of
Presidential Science Adviser John Holdren and NOAA Administrator Jane
Lubchenco has been put on hold by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) over an
unrelated matter. We wrote a letter to the Senator urging him to withdraw
his objection, contacted his office by phone, and encourage our colleagues
to do likewise. Contact information follows, see details
Juliet Eilperin's article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/02/AR200903020
2425.html reports;
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has placed a hold that blocks votes on
confirming Harvard University physicist John Holdren, who is in line to lead
the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Oregon State
University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, Obama's nominee to head the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Menendez is [allegedly]
using the holds as leverage to get Senate leaders' attention for a matter
related to Cuba ...
Anyone wishing to urge the Senator to release his hold immediately so we can
get down to the business of dealing with climate disruption --including the
eventual inundation of the New Jersey shore as a result of sea level
rise-can do so by placing a phone call to his office and/or sending a note:
Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ)
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
http://www.menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
We are seeing that grassroots democracy is an increasingly powerful means
for advancing our civic responsibilities in dealing with climate disruption.
We see no reason why his phone should not be ringing off the hook and his
email flooded today over this matter.
Here is our letter to the Senator:
Climate Science Watch
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org
Government Accountability Project
http://www.whistleblower.org
1612 K Street, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
Senator Robert Menendez
528 Hart Senate Office Building
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Sen. Menendez:
We read in today's Washington Post ('Nominations on Hold For
[ECOLOG-L] soil scientist positions, Beartooth Mountains, MT
--- JOB ANNOUNCEMENT (Seasonal Positions) --- Two soil scientist positions are available for the field season 2009 to inventory soils of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness as part of the Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) of the Custer National Forest in Montana. A considerable portion of the field work will be located in the upper subalpine and alpine zones of the Beartooth Mountains immediately northeast of Yellowstone National Park. This mountain range is known for extensive high elevation plateaus with the largest continuous alpine area of the lower 48 states. Soil scientists will team up with botanists to locate sampling site with GPS, topographic maps and/or aerial photos, inventory plant community, characterize landforms and complete soil survey. Applicants must be in excellent physical condition, able to hike in rugged, mountainous terrain, carry heavy loads, dig one meter deep soil pits in rocky substrates, and be enthusiastic about working and living outdoors in variable weather. Due to the remote location of many sampling sites, jobs require living in the backcountry for 8 consecutive days with appropriate time off between trips. Field work will start middle of June and continue to the end of August 2009. QUALIFICATIONS: Course work and/or field experience in soil classification or related field, familiarity with NRCS soil survey standards. Applicants should be highly motivated and able to work long hours as team members in remote settings. COMPENSATION: $10-$13/hour depending on qualification, ~40 hrs/week with irregular hours, June - August 2009 TO APPLY: Please send a resume, unofficial copies of transcripts and list of three references to Sabine Mellmann-Brown, Montana State University, Department of Ecology, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, MT 59717-3460. E-mail applications will be accepted in PDF format only to mellmann*at*montana.edu. Review of applications begins on March 30, 2009.
[ECOLOG-L] Post-doc position in forest/plant ecology and modeling
A postdoctoral scientist position is available at the University of Wyoming. The postdoc will be a part of a project team that is developing and testing a scaling framework for understanding forest diversity and productivity. The project involves three main components organized around the following questions. How do plant traits related to tree form and function vary between species, and how do evolutionary versus environmental drivers affect trait variability? Is a species-specific representation of form and function necessary to describe community and ecosystem properties? How do we develop a general scaling framework for predicting large-scale forest dynamics that includes species-specific trait variability and key physiological mechanisms? Data-model integration methods will be developed and applied to address these questions, including: (i) dynamic process models that link tree form and function; (ii) Bayesian meta-analysis tools for analyzing literature data on species-specific traits that incorporate phylogenetic information; and (iii) rigorous statistical and computational methods for informing the process model with large and disparate data sources. Qualifications: (1) a PhD with expertise in one or more of the following or related areas: ecology, ecological modeling, statistics, or ecological informatics; (2) strong mathematical and statistical background, especially in likelihood or Bayesian methods; (3) proficient programming skills; (4) background in forest ecology or plant physiological ecology, or ability and desire to develop quickly a proficiency in these areas; (5) good verbal and written communication skills; and (6) ability and desire to interact and collaborate with other scientists. The project PIs are Drs. Kiona Ogle (Botany Statistics; www.uwyo.edu/oglelab) and Jarrett Barber (Statistics). Application materials: (1) cover letter stating research interests, why this position is of interest, and relevant qualifications and experience, (2) CV, and (3) names and contact information of three references. Send via email a PDF copy of the application materials to Dr. Kiona Ogle (ko...@uwyo.edu). Please submit applications by May 1, 2009. Pending final approval of funding, the preferred start date is before July 1, 2009. For more information, contact Dr. Ogle via email.
[ECOLOG-L] Post Doc in Road Ecology
Research Associate (Postdoctoral) in Road Ecology, College of Forestry, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society (FES), Oregon State University and Pacific Northwest Research Station (USDA Forest Service). The primary role of this position is to develop a basic and applied research agenda and program that will help inform road-related land-use policies in the US. The successful applicant will perform a broad array of research activities including meta-analysis, literature review, experimental design of a large- scale study on road closure, and writing peer-reviewed scientific publications. The position requires a Ph.D. in ecology/ conservation biology or related field with a strong interest in landscape ecology and road ecology. Priority will be given to candidates with a high degree of independence, a strong quantitative background including spatial analysis, as well as experience in database management and grant writing. We currently have funding for 1 year at 0.75 FTE at a competitive salary and benefits, with good potential for extension dependent on funding. Precedence exists in FES for conversion of research associates to longer- term positions. To apply, please send a CV, contact information for three references, 2 examples of publications and a 2 page statement of interest. We encourage candidates to include information in their statement on how their background will contribute to the position, and how the position may benefit their career. Applications should be sent to Dr. Matthew Betts: matthew.be...@oregonstate.edu. Inquires should be directed toward either Dr. Betts or Dr. Winston Smith, USFS: winstonsm...@fs.fed.us. For more information on the research program and OSU please review the websites: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/flel/index.htm, http://oregonstate.edu/ For information on research programs and the pacific Northwest Research Station, please visit the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/index.shtml Applications submitted before May 1st, 2009 will be given priority, though we will continue to accept applications until the position is filled.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Maiken writes: the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, I would say the first results are in - there is no consensus. Not on the problem and not on what to do about it. Maiken Winter wrote: I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics, one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter -- Thomas R. Cuba, Ph.D., CEP, CLM President, Delta Seven Inc. http://www.delta-seven.com 727-823-2443
[ECOLOG-L] Proceedings of the Animal-Borne Imaging Symposium
National Geographic’s Remote Imaging Department would like to announce the publication of the Proceedings from the first Animal-Borne Imaging Symposium. Animal-borne imaging is a growing discipline that integrates video, audio, environmental, geospatial and physiological data collection in an animal-borne instrument. Recording from the animal's point of view, without human presence, it enables unobtrusive study of difficult-to-observe animal behavior. In recent years, ever-miniaturizing video and digital technologies have enabled smaller, more streamlined, and more robust data-rich systems to be developed. This progression has led to more deployments on more species, which has resulted in an expanding body of statistically-supported assertions of novel behaviors and ecological relationships that have far-reaching conservation and management implications. We wanted to provide a venue for researchers to share and celebrate their experiences using these imaging systems, so in October 2007, the National Geographic Society hosted the first-ever Animal-Borne Imaging Symposium at its headquarters in Washington DC. More than fifty researchers from around the world participated in this inaugural conference, and over the three days, delegates gave some 50 presentations, and hosted two dozen additional panels, films, and student/teacher activities exploring this concept. To encapsulate this knowledge, and make it available for reference, we've published our Animal-Borne Imaging Symposium Proceedings. Those interested in obtaining a free copy of the book can download the PDF (14MB) by clicking on the “Animal-Borne Imaging Symposium Proceedings” link from the following webpage: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/abis/. Regards, Danielle Rappaport Program Coordinator Remote Imaging Department National Geographic Society
[ECOLOG-L] USA National Phenology Network Inaugural Year
Taking the Pulse of our Planet: Volunteers Needed to Track Seasonal Signs of Climate Change Volunteers across the nation are being recruited to get outdoors and help track the effects of climate on seasonal changes in plant and animal behavior. The USA-National Phenology Network (USA-NPN), a consortium of government, academic and citizen-scientists, is launching a new national program built on volunteer observations of flowering, fruiting and other seasonal events. Scientists and resource managers will use these observations to track effects of climate change on the Earth’s life-support systems. “This program is designed for people interested in participating in climate change science, not just reading about it,” said USA-NPN Executive Director and U.S. Geological Survey scientist Jake Weltzin. “We encourage everyone to visit the website (www.usanpn.org) and then go outside and observe the marvelous cycles of plant and animal life.” Phenology is the study of the seasonal cycles of plant and animals, such as plants sprouting, flowering and fruiting, and animals reproducing, migrating and hibernating. Changes in these patterns, caused by climate change or other factors, can significantly affect human economies and health. In some areas, such changes have already imperiled species, such as in the disappearance of some wildflowers from near Walden Pond, home of the famed 19th-century naturalist Henry David Thoreau. The USA-NPN monitoring program harnesses the power of people and the Internet to vastly increase the data available to scientists and the public alike, Weltzin said. The program provides easy-to-use methods to track the life cycles of nearly 200 species of plants, and will begin monitoring animals next year. Mark D. Schwartz, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and chair of the USA-NPN board of directors, said monitoring changes in seasonal events across large areas helps researchers forecast the effects of global climate change on plants, animals, and ecosystems. Among other uses, data collected by USA-NPN will help resource managers predict wildfires and pollen production, detect and control invasive species, monitor droughts, and assess the vulnerability of various plant and animal species to climate change. The USA-NPN, based at The University of Arizona in Tucson, is built upon partnerships among citizen scientists, government agencies, nongovernment organizations, academic researchers, educators and the public. The rapidly expanding network includes collaborations among the U.S. Geological Survey, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, The University of Arizona, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and The Wildlife Society. Project BudBurst, a major partner of the USA-NPN, is launching its second season of plant phenology monitoring at www.budburst.org . Link to press release: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2151
[ECOLOG-L] Research Experience for Undergraduates
The Academy for the Environment (http://environment.unr.edu/), facilitating student involvement in environmental research and education at UNR, and the Great Basin Institute (http://www.thegreatbasininstitute.org/), an environmental research, education and conservation organization, invite applications for the summer 2009 REU program in natural resources conservation and socioeconomic issues, sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Overview of Program: Research teams will work in the eastern Sierra region of Nevada, within the Lake Tahoe-Truckee River-Pyramid Lake watershed, on studies ranging from fire effects on watershed restoration to anthropogenic influences on water quality along the shore zone at Lake Tahoe. Participants will be exposed to diverse scientific inquiries and technologies to gain insight into how science informs land and water use policy, management and conservation initiatives. The program will take place during the ten consecutive weeks of 8 June through 14 August 2009. Students in the program will be provided a stipend of $4500, along with housing and per diem. Research Topics Include: Biological, physical and chemical sampling of aquatic resources Impacts and management of invasive species Remote sensing and rephotography (comparing past and current images of an area)analyses of environmental change Resource management policy and implementation within the watershed Recreation and capacity studies of state and federal lands in the Tahoe Basin Eligibility: Qualified undergraduates, who will have junior or senior status and will be a full-time student in the Fall 2009 term, with a combination of coursework in the following disciplines are invited to apply: environmental studies, natural resources, biology, ecology, hydrology, resource economics, and statistics. We especially encourage applications from students at primarily undergraduate institutions and from underrepresented groups. Participants must be citizens or permanent legal residents of the USA. Review of applications will begin on 20 March 2009. Applications received after this date will be considered on a space-available basis. Contact: See http://environment.unr.edu/ for links to an application and other information on this REU program. For further information, contact Mike Collopy at mcoll...@unr.edu or 775-784-8262.
[ECOLOG-L] Seasonal Position: Live-in Intern at Elk Lake, Adirondacks, NY
This position is ideal for persons seeking solitude, serenity, and beautiful pristine landscapes during the writing stage of thier dissertation, or have field sites in the high peaks areas of the Adirondacks, but have no funding. Free food, lodging, and decent tip share. Seeking interested individual to live at Elk Lake Lodge (elklakelodge.com) located on a 12,000-acre privately-owned forest preserve in the heart of the High Peaks region, ringed by Dix, Macomb, Nippletop and Colvin mountains with 40 miles of well-maintained private trails and the take-off point for state trails into the High Peaks Wilderness Area during the period May 1 – October 17, 2008 (Dates listed are preferred but flexible, according to student schedule) Responsibilities: · Answer phones and take reservations from 4:30 to 8:30 pm. · Assist dining room/ kitchen staff as needed · Strong interpersonal and communication skills · On property overnight and available to mitigate emergencies as well as minor incidents · Knowledge of the property and area attractions of potential interest to guests · Ability to work at least 20 hours a week In exchange, Elk Lake Lodge will provide: · Free room and board · Use of all Elk Lake facilities · 12,000-acre private preserve including 2 lakes for recreation and/or owner-approved research · Hourly rate beginning at $9.00 per hour Call Managers Cammy or Mike Sheridan at 518-532-7616 or e-mail i...@elklakelodge.com to arrange an interview -- Erin L. Page MS Environmental Science, Water and Wetland Resources SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry http://www.esf.edu/efb/horton/Page_bio.htm
Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Honorable Forum: Ecosystems are resilient; cultural systems are brittle. Nature is indifferent, not caring. The ecosystem adapts (by structural alterations, aka extinction and population shifts in ratio) to change, whether culture survives or not. Que sera, sera. WT 'Cause suicide is painless, It brings on many changes, And I can take or leave it if I please --Mike Altman - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says with some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise that climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then the costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate change is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing countries. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Y'all: Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of circularity, the boy who cried wolf phenomenon might be on the opposite side of the clock diagram from crying in the wilderness, each on the other side of the vertical or midnight position, i.e., worlds apart in one sense, but in the apparent sense close together. While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) scientific, I have decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even if for the wrong reasons. It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of keystone or domino effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?) genius behind the carbon obsession? In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility of sufficient actual reduction (credits and other means of capitalizing upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming outside energy/mass cycles. That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter how wrong some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . WT The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline. --Raymond Gilmore - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the
[ECOLOG-L] Journal announcement
Hello! I would like to announce the leading open access European malacological journal: Folia Malacologica. All volumes/issues are free available at www.foliamalacologica.com Best wishes, Tomasz Kaluski
[ECOLOG-L] Alaska Summer Field Course: Wildlands Studies 2009
The Wrangell Mountains Center is pleased to announce the Alaska Wildlands Studies Summer Field Program. Please pass this on to any of your qualified and potentially interested undergraduate students. The Alaska Wildlands Studies Summer Field Program is an intensive field course focusing on the ecology, geology, and local culture of the rugged Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, Alaska. The seven week course is taught through the Wrangell Mountains Center, a private, non-profit, environmental institute located in the historic mining town of McCarthy, in the heart of the park. The nearby peaks, glaciers, alpine valleys and subalpine forests provide an ideal setting for hands-on fieldwork, while the rich cultural history of the park provides a fascinating setting in which to conduct research. Students will gain a thorough understanding of ecological and geological principles in the context of the local wilderness environment through a combination of classroom lectures and rigorous field exercises. Using this skill set, students and faculty will collaborate to design field research projects based on each students individual interests. Using their field data, students will complete a final paper and presentation of their results. Participants earn 12 semester units (18 quarter units) of transferable, upper division college credit through the California State University Monterey Bay. This credit has been successfully transferred to a wide range of colleges and universities to satisfy ecology and biology degree field requirements and geology field camp requirements. Alaska field studies program participants receive credits for three courses: Environmental Wildlands Studies (ENVS 370 A), 4 semester units Wildlands Ecological Evaluation (ENVS 370 B), 4 semester units Wildlands Environment and Culture (ENVS 370 C), 4 semester units Participants will receive a letter grade (or a pass/no pass on request) based on 1) assigned field exercises and daily entries in field journals; 2) formal presentations at group seminars; 3) written examinations; 4) written term paper; and 5) completion of required readings. Program Costs: Program Fee:$2395 plus $75 application fee, due 5/15/09 Estimated in-county expenses: $1525 per person for land transportation, fuel, lodging, field activities/permits, course materials. Scholarships and financial aid are available for this course. For scholarship information or for more details regarding the course and location, please visit our websites at: http://www.wrangells.org/aws.html http://www.wildlandsstudies.com/5.html. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have about the program. Sophie Gilbert, Faculty Megan Gahl, Faculty and Academic Coordinator sophielgilb...@gmail.comga...@unb.ca
Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
Are all natural systems resilient? What about the early successional systems that human agriculture approximates? Are all cultural systems, including hunter-gatherer societies or the Catholic Church, brittle? Jane On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Wayne Tyson landr...@cox.net wrote: Honorable Forum: Ecosystems are resilient; cultural systems are brittle. Nature is indifferent, not caring. The ecosystem adapts (by structural alterations, aka extinction and population shifts in ratio) to change, whether culture survives or not. Que sera, sera. WT 'Cause suicide is painless, It brings on many changes, And I can take or leave it if I please --Mike Altman - Original Message - From: Warren W. Aney a...@coho.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:58 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Since Wayne cited the precautionary principle, I'll second what he says with some simpler and more direct language: If we act now under the premise that climate change is human-caused, and we are wrong about this cause, then the costs will be high but the benefits could still be tremendous in terms of reduced pollution and reductions in reliance on non-renewable carbon based energy sources. If we fail to act now under the premise that climate change is not human-caused, and we are wrong, the human and environmental costs could be catastrophic, particularly in third world and developing countries. Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of Wayne Tyson Sent: Tuesday, 03 March, 2009 20:48 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: [ECOLOG-L] CLIMATE CHANGE Anthropogenic ignition? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Y'all: Hamilton's point is well-taken--the devil is in the details. Speaking of circularity, the boy who cried wolf phenomenon might be on the opposite side of the clock diagram from crying in the wilderness, each on the other side of the vertical or midnight position, i.e., worlds apart in one sense, but in the apparent sense close together. While I maintain a state of suspended judgment in the absence of evidence, neither do I recognize absence of evidence as evidence of absence. While CO2 well might be a surrogate for habitat destruction that is at once sufficiently vague and sufficiently (or vaguely) scientific, I have decided to not cloud the issue just in case the right things get done, even if for the wrong reasons. It may well be true that one can't add up all the carbon emissions directly caused by culture, the possibility of a sort of keystone or domino effect might be laid in the lap of Homo sapiens, and there is little doubt that there is prima facie evidence that the contributions therefrom have increased for the last ten millennia or so. So . . . a case in absolute refutation is similarly difficult. Therein might lie the (evil or saintly?) genius behind the carbon obsession? In any case, it seems clear that, particularly given the probable futility of sufficient actual reduction (credits and other means of capitalizing upon the rage), the precautionary principle is probably preferable to the needless and heedless fraction of the unique human talent for consuming outside energy/mass cycles. That is, no matter how inevitably nutty human expression may be, no matter how wrong some might be, a change in current trends could benefit the earth and its life--even, perhaps, including the guilty parties. A Pax upon us all, great and small . . . WT The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual discipline. --Raymond Gilmore - Original Message - From: Robert Hamilton rhami...@mc.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one up. No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a in classic boy who cried wolf type loss of credibility for informed scientists. With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real issue, not just the carbon footprint. There is no activity we engage in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed to support those cities. The carbon footprint
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey!
See www.realclimate.org. Jane On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Tom Cuba tom.c...@delta-seven.com wrote: Maiken writes: the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, I would say the first results are in - there is no consensus. Not on the problem and not on what to do about it. Maiken Winter wrote: I owe you all a short explanation - I developed the survey I posted yesterday (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=S2Q7Cyxa8xmJSiRNn_2b8Opw_3d_3d) not for a scientific study but to get a quick overview over the thoughts of scientists about their role in climate action. I plan to use the results to write a commentary ona blog, the Clean Energy Project (www.cleanenergy-project.de). Obviously, the survey is not perfect at all; but it does give interesting results so far. As it turns out, the responses are so many, the debate so intense, the answers so contradictory, that I do want to improve this survey and repeat it professionally to be able to have a more scientific debate on an issue that is - in my opinion - of major importance. Basically, I believe it is high time what we seriously rethink and debate our role as scientists in society, and about the prioritization of our work. Is it true that scientists have no more responsibility to act than any other citizen - as some people commented? But isn't it also true that we are privileged to be educated and wealthy enough to have the means and freedom to think through the scientific evidence, and to understand what that evidence truly means? If we, as scientists, feel that we understand science better than other people, isn't it our uttermost responsibility to pass on this knowledge and understanding on to others? Not only to other scientists, but also to the public and politicians as well. Science is not politics, and scientists should stay away from politics, one scientist commented. But relying on politicians and media to interpret our data got us in the trouble we are in today. I hope this survey stimulates further discussion (but please more friendly; I love debate, but only when it is based on mutual respect) and helps us to step a bit further out of our science glasshouse to take responsibility for what we all work for - a deeper understanding of nature so that future generations can admire and witness what we discover. Many of those discoveries will be useless if we do not act quickly on climate change together. Please do know that I am well aware of the danger to lose credibility when getting active in public affairs, and that I absolutely do not pretend to know the solution of how to best balance both sides. But I do believe that at the moment we are not courageous enough to try out how to best stand on that rope, and that our priorities at the moment are often too selfish and short-sighted, myself included. Thank you to all those who have participated in the survey so far! And thanks for those who will. Maiken Winter -- Thomas R. Cuba, Ph.D., CEP, CLM President, Delta Seven Inc. http://www.delta-seven.com 727-823-2443 -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia co-founder, a href=http://www.worldbeyondborders.org;World Beyond Borders/a Check out my blog, a href=http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com;Perceiving Wholes/a Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes. --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
