Apologies to both Olivers for slightly eliding their views in reply after
misreadng Tickell's response to be Morton's
On Monday, July 15, 2013 6:25:30 AM UTC-4, Oliver Tickell wrote:
>
> An interesting thought, but of course there is much more to it than
> botanical gardens. Commercial introduc
I feel impelled to provide a complementary view. The very concept of
"homogocene" is paradoxically anthropocentric. I feel sorry for the rats,
cane toads, sheep, grasses, mosquitoes, who are "homogenizing" previously
separated biomes. They are simply doing what they are supposed to do:
adapting, s
An interesting thought, but of course there is much more to it than
botanical gardens. Commercial introductions, seeds in shoes, gardeners,
military usage ... and then of course all the animals, from rats to cane
toads to sheep to anopheles mosquitos ... and let's not forget the
fungi, such as
t; (unfortunately some of the best words may be military acronyms not spelled out in polite society)Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org
Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Oli Morton with Opinion Article on "Nitrogen
Geoengineering"
From: Stephen S
Could the Royal Society define human life in advanced and advancing
economies as
"the ignorant and large scale manipulation of the planetary environment
regardless of the effects on anything."
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh May
In writing of " homogocene issues " Oliver Morton has floated a variation
of the theme of the 'anthropocene ' that might take on a life of its own .
Though Greek-Latin portmanteau words are deservedly suspect , there has
long been a need for an adjective to designate and reify a very importan
One very minor thing about this thread. Though I am happy for friends and I
suppose others to call me Oli, for professional work I do prefer Oliver
On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 12:16:29 UTC+1, geoengineeringourclimate wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Oli Morton of The Economist has penned an Opinion Ar
s.
From: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) [mailto:r.d.schuil...@uu.nl]
Sent: 12 July 2013 14:34
To: Chris Vivian (Cefas); geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: geoengineeringourclim...@gmail.com; nua...@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Oli Morton with Opinion Article on "Nitrogen
Geoengineering"
Bhaskar,
The prefix ‘geo’ has NO implication of ‘global scale’. It comes from Greek
and means 'of the earth'. For example, geology is the study of the solid
earth and geochemistry the study of the Earth's chemistry, without any
scale being implied – see
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology
Andrew
There is a difference between Engineering and Geoengineering.
The examples you gave are simple engineering solutions not Geoengineering.
The Geo in Geoengineering means that BEFORE action is started (research or
deployment) there is an INTENT to use on global scale.
An engineering soluti
@ Andrew -- There is a continuum here, but i would distinguish
"large-scale" and "global", and note that global effects of clearance on
climate (as opposed to homogocene issues) not large, or even necessarily
noticeable
@ Fred -- method might be nice -- but read Crookes, the key document here,
I wonder why it should matter who identified the problem or who thought of
the solution, i.e. a member or members of the scientific elite. Why should
it matter whether the perceived problem is obvious to the person on the
street? And whether the proposed solution or any solution other than the
Isn't Oliver's definition:
was developed purposefully i*n response to a threat*, which, *while not
obvious in everyday life, had been identified by the scientific
elite.*Like climate change today
*, that threat was seen as being of global significance* and* to have no
easily attainable political s
I maintain that development of techniques for fire clearance, and axes for
deforestation would fit your definition.
I doubt very much that aboriginal hunters in Australia or southern European
farmers lacked the intent to clear land, nor that they only used pre
existing technology. It was clearly d
David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at "Morton's reasoning" as expressed
in the text, you'll find that I don't agree.
The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen cycle
did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it
deployed that way; the foresigh
Other processes which may qualify :
Fire clearance of Australia to desert grassland 40k
Clearance of European forest for agriculture 2k
Extinction of herbivore megafauna in Eurasia 6+k
Also more localised, but combined, drainage of Saltmarsh for farmland
A
On Jul 9, 2013 5:47 PM, "David Lewis" w
If inventing a way to convert nitrogen from air into chemicals qualifies as
geoengineering, it isn't even close to being the first example. I.e. when
the first hominid moved the first rock out of the way to get into the first
cave, according to Morton's reasoning, geoengineering began. See:
W
17 matches
Mail list logo
