Essay

Hi, Although barely familiar with the NMR concept and its application, I can't offer any reliable or experienced-based answers to your questions. However, since nobody until somebody else.... Just by looking at the peaks, and how they are "subtracted" to produce some interesting differences, makes me think you are missing something when you "suppose" the headpiece becomes unfolded. That is not why corresponding peaks are different, I'm guessing. I think the "broader peaks" are simply a result of the addition/subtraction of the middle (flatish) graph, with the other. Are you seeing the lower (isolated headpiece) as having the broader peaks (compared with the top graph [intact gene?])? It should work such that c + b = a, right? ~SA

At the risk of moving off-topic, or confusing a possible sea-level rise of about 200 feet (~70 meters) today, with a rise of 200 meters from 100My ago.... === Oceans back then were saltier (unrelated aside), as well as being more uniformly warm across their depth profile, so “expansion” may have been a bit more significant; however, oceans aren’t really very “deep” relative to their breadth, so the boundaries don’t affect the volume nearly as significantly as do changes in the depth. The average depth is about 4 kilometers, compared with an area of 361 million (square) kilometers; so the depth is ~0.002% of the breadth. Consider the changes associated with examples such as the Thulean Plateau, and similar buoyancy and subsidence events occurring over 70% of the planet’s surface; similar to mountain building or plateau uplift/subsidence on land, except on a larger scale. And of course the actual mountains of the spreading centers, along with the subduction and abyssal trenches also contribute to major changes in the volume of the basins; especially within the vertical scale of a few kilometers, so the effects are magnified when compared with changes in perimeter measured on the horizontal scale of millions-of-square kilometers. But I don’t know “for sure,” this is mostly based on university lectures and various associated books I’ve enjoyed; more or less mainstream views and traditional dogma. I agree that simply splitting the continents wouldn’t change the area of the ocean basins much, but it will add many new “deep” trenches. Add a few more trenches and a spreading center, as when a new ocean basin is created, and you can add or subtract a lot of volume without changing the total area very much. I did recently hear that the total area of the world’s deep ocean trenches was similar to the area of Australia! “These trenches are thought to equal an area the size of Australia….” “…and evidence of a new lost continent under the Indian Ocean are just some of the phenomena available in our oceans. It is also home to the longest and highest mountain range on Earth, with a combined surface area many more times vast than all the continents of the Earth put together.” ~

Sea level "changes" that speak about 200 meters is for an "ice-free" world, such as the Cretaceous 'hot-house' from 90-120 Mya (Cenomanian-Turonian), pre-Atlantic Ocean; and so the global ocean-basin volume was much smaller. === Today's total volume of ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and Mountain Glaciers, if melted, ...would contribute an additional ~70 meters to sea level, in today's ocean basins. ...iirc, from a recent climate science class. ...but we can run away from rising oceans. Acidification and erosion, and the consequent disruptions to the food chains and the agriculture that supports our societies, will be more difficult to run away from. ~

So what does the IPCC say about this? Climate scientists I've heard, or talked with or read, explain how more energy means more extremes in general; wet areas getting wetter, and the dry drier. Also, while long term averages may not change much, we can still expect more flood/drought cycles, compared with previously (relatively more) steady and predictable, moderate precipitation events. The "basics" of geology go into how weathering creates many of the changes in rocks and soils and topographies. There is a reason tropical soils are not very fertile; leaching of nutrients happens more easily in tropical climates. Civilization currently depends heavily upon agriculture in a relatively stable, temperate zone ...and on not having soil blow away during a drought or wash away during a flood. Though that erosion might make it easier to find hidden land mines... ...or not. === Been hearing more about sinkholes lately ...or unusually large landslides anywhere? === But you're right about it being a small number of Joules ...per square meter; it's only in the range on 1 Joule/m^2. And one Joule on average, for every square meter of the planet's surface --land, sea, and ice-- is only a minor change when compared with the 5 or 10 Joule/second change that the solar (sunspot) cycle travels back and forth through on a (roughly) decadal schedule, which affects the planet during the daytime, for 5 or 6 years, until the cycle reverses its daytime effects during the rest of the 'decadal' cycle. Global warming is only like putting a 1 Watt night-light, on every square meter of the planet, and leaving it burning, 24/7/365, year after year, and decade after decade; and for centuries to follow into the foreseeable future, never cycling off. ...though I think the IPCC's latest numbers put the extra heating at slightly over 2 Joules per second; or like 500 billion Two-Watt bulbs, everywhere globally "forevermore." ~

Relatively, to a degree, you're right! My feeble attempt at humor was not very accurate or relevant. But 4% more "absolute" humidity per degree, globally, is accurate and relevant. That represents a huge amount of heating, which doesn't register on a thermometer, called latent heat. Does your basic background in science explain what that means for the weather, erosion, or (if sustained) for global climate? ~

In the late 1970s, on some occasion after a university lesson on Entropy, a friend who was taking the same thermodynamics class as me noted that: "Life is just Nature's Way of turning Light into Heat." He looked at me, waiting a couple of seconds to see if I understood, until I burst into laughter and he could tell that I got his point ...and we both laughed hard, and kept laughing even more as we realized more about the implications! I always happily remember that peak moment, when the sublime truth underlying so much of reality became clarified for me by such a ridiculously simple statement. I'm glad to see somebody has quantified, and can now test, this truth hypothesis. === Years later it occurred to me how a more humorously accessible form at the same statement might be: Life is just God's Way to maximize Entropy. ...but that might only be funny to atheistic scientists. ~

...not to mention that... Since atmospheric water vapor increases by about 4% for every 1 degree increase, there is also the "feels like" factor to consider. It's not the heat, it's the humidity! ~

When the continents were down in the land of the Gonds, those rivers were not there, as you suggest ...I'm fairly sure, but no expert. The rivers result from climate, and the resultant deposition of precipitation; very often depending upon mountains and topography to concentrate and direct the runoff. I don't know about Africa, but for S. America, the Andes Mountains are much less than 50 million years old (more like 20-40, iirc), and are associated with the westward push of S.America as the Atlantic opened ...I'm fairly sure. And those mountains are critical to ...making the whole system work (sorry to get non-specific there, but the Amazon is a unique case; not just related to mountain effects). The Amazon Jungle generates enough moisture, through evapotranspiration, to affect its own climate; bringing in more moisture to help generate that fantastic river system. But the point is that the Amazon Jungle did not exist before the Andes mountains rose high enough to help create the right conditions... I think! I hope somebody will correct my impressions and assumptions (which are based on casual studies of paleoclimatology and paleosols, and a standard education in biochemical ecology and evolution). === Though of course now that I think more about it, since at some point the juncture of S. America and S. Africa, and W. Antarctica were buried under many gigatonnes of ice (probably enough to cause them to break apart), then the ice may have helped generate some topographic relief and proto-river channels ...especially as Africa and South America moved towards the equator and the planet warmed again. But ultimately, it is the position of the continents relative to the bands of precipitation and dry zones, and the interaction of monsoon flows and mountains and (the development of) tropical glaciers, that determines where a river is going to arise; not some quality of the continental structure, which remains situated to unchangingly spring forth water, regardless of where or what latitude any continent happens to drift around into. ~ I'm fairly sure.... p.s. I think back in the Gond [and/or Pangea, or later] times, South American was much flatter and flooded by a 'giant' inland shallow sea, which drained to the North (just as with N. America), through Venezuela; and was such until after the Andes formed, along with Caribbean and Isthmus changes ...again, well within the past 50 million years.

...if I may re-phrase and paraphrase your quote above: === I agree with your view of the problem and solution, especially for the "huge marginal land" situation. Local people then become a valued resource, as land managers and biomass managers. And as a "carbon-neutral" fuel, the efficiencies of the process are not as critical; so there is room to experiment and adjust, and customize for the local situation. Also.... Improving some of those marginal lands, and developing them as a new resource (a better source of nutrition/health or income), can also be a co-benefit of such a "biomass-burning power plant" system. If during the biomass burning, some completely charred biomass is created, then you can remove that charred biomass (biochar) and use it as a soil amendment. As a way to improve or restore marginal soils, or maintain soils that are healthy, resilient, and yield better, biochar is worth learning about ...as a soil supplement ...as a supplement to your good "biomass-burning power plant" idea. "...as if there is more land for each plant!" ...to help reduce need for more deforestation. Biochar Crop and Soil Benefits: Biochar significantly improves... Soil Cation Exchange Capacity, Fertilizer Efficiency and "natural" Nitrogen Fixation, and Crop Productivity/Yield; as well as improves soil Water Retention, Bulk Density (less compactable), and can help with Acidity Control and pH Buffering. It also reduces erosion and leaching. p.s. Citations: Biochar for Environmental Management. 2009; 416 pages, $50.00, Publ: IBI/Earthscan. (Library of Congress Call Number: TP331 .B56 2009) Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use. 2009; 50 pages, $12.95, Publ: Worldwatch. (Library of Congress Call Number: S589.7 .S337 2009) ~

It was the picture, rather than the article, that made me wonder if maybe they were thinking along the line of a real-time collector/jet engine. But no, I don't think there are any (solar-heated biochar) production facilities; only propane or self-fired. The nearest, would be facilities that use concentrated solar to fully convert biomass into oxidized product, almost like incineration. They use temps that are over 2000 degrees, I think; but don't know if they are still up-n-running. There was one in Denver a few years ago. To do it right, they would need to select a more specific, lower temperature; and it would probably be different for each type of biomass, so that would complicate things lots. Plus, as you mention, the various costs of transport and processing the biomass makes it more complicated (expensive) too. If the price points and credits were structured differently, then maybe it could be more feasible. Thanks! ~

The International Permafrost Association says: "Most of the permafrost existing today formed during cold glacial periods, and has persisted through warmer interglacial periods, including the Holocene (last 10,000 years). Some relatively shallow permafrost (30 to 70 meters) formed during the second part of the Holocene (last 6,000 years) and some during the Little Ice Age (from 400 to 150 years ago)." It's taken several millions of years to build up those reservoirs of permafrost. "By the end of this century, without a reduction in emissions, atmospheric CO2 is projected to increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years." -National Research Council, 2011 Thirty million years worth of climate change!? Hey, that is before any permafrost existed; that is, since the demise of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals and primates and even the Atlantic Ocean. === But as you say, it'll just be melting around the edges ...at first; but then accelerating, and continuing for centuries to come. ~

Isn't the main point here regarding [Johnny Electriglide, on 11 Apr 2014 - 10:07 AM, said: "Methane Apocalypse, Everything Else Is A Distraction."] ...mostly about methane coming from melting permafrost, arctic lakes and arctic shorelines ...rather than the offshore clathrates?

...so maybe it is designed to be a "self feeding" jet engine, rather than just a producer of jet engine fuel, for future consumption. That would need to collect enough CO2 to produce litres/second, and also be lightweight enough to not ruin fuel efficiency.... ...doesn't sound like a sound or likely balance to achieve. ~

"The Solar-Jet fuel project demonstrated an innovative process technology using simulated, concentrated sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water to a so-called synthesis gas (syngas). The syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, is finally converted into kerosene by using the well established and commercial Fischer-Tropsch process. - See more at: http://interestingengineering.com/water-carbon-dioxide-solar-power-solar-jet-fuel/#sthash.MiTtjTTi.dpuf Sure, by "using simulated, concentrated sunlight," anything should be possible, chemically. I don't know if they are using a laser to dissociate CO2, to create the syngas, but the trick is getting the syngas. Once they get that step, then traditional methods can take over for producing diesel or kerosene. Syngas is the gas produced during "biochar" creation, through "reductive" pyrolysis. On an industrial scale, syngas can be a byproduct of biochar production. The syngas can then be processed to create liquid fuels. But on a small scale, the syngas is usually recycled to drive the firing process of biochar production. The use of a "purge gas" is also similar to the reductive pyrolysis process, as the need to limit oxygen is critical for making syngas. Essentially, the two processes are the same, except these folks are taking CO2 directly from the air; whereas with biochar production, biomass is the source of carbon (as a source, extraced from the air, of "concentrated CO2"). Ultimately, through some process, the carbon-bearing molecules must be dissociated, so that CO is produced. Then synthetic processes can be used to build up a liquid fuel. It seems as if getting enough CO2 concentrated to run the process would be the hardest part; but maybe it could be used to clean CO2 from the exhaust of a coal-fired power plant. Why don't they just use waste biomass for the carbon source, instead of trying to get enough CO2 out of the air? Are they trying to run the CO2 "collector" as the actual jet engine itself? ~

Whether or not CFC's "were a contributing factor" to "global cooling" ...I've never heard about in terms of climate. CFCs were/are a problem ...due to the "Ozone Hole" ...which is still being solved (hence the ban on many CFCs). === Probably you are confusing the CFC-induced "Ozone Hole" with the discoveries about "global cooling" and ice-age cycles, which all came out about the same time ...back then. ...however I don't think there was any link with the ozone hole and global cooling or global warming, except perhaps as some small additional contribution (but not as a driving factor). The orbital cycles that "drive" any ice-age conditions, along with the heat-driving effect of greenhouse gases (which counteracts and overwhelms any orbital variations), will both affect climate much more strongly than the ozone hole could ever directly affect climate. The ozone hole is mostly about how UV radiation causes extra mutations and cancers in the current population, especially at higher and polar latitudes, than it is about climate. === I don't think the extra, mutagenic, radiation could ever be balanced with any climate "benefit" either ...and I would also worry more about sterilizing -or otherwise disrupting- the base of the global food chain, in those polar regions where the ozone hole is worst. Besides all that, CFCs are exceedingly potent greenhouse gases, so any "cooling" effect (that might be linked with creating a larger ozone hole), would be overwhelmingly offset by their huge GHG effect. ~

There is a lot of information online, if you can link to the results of web searches, from phrases such as: biomes effect on soil formation biomes effect on geological processes nutrient distribution in biomes geologic effect of biomes geologic effect of food webs niche differentiation trophic niche partitioning social effects of resource depletion social effects of resources distribution ~

Do people benefit differently, from various distributions of nutrients (or other resources), in the environment?

It might help to stop thinking of them as living things, and just think about them as packets of minerals, or metals, salts, carbon, nitrogen, and the other elements that are concentrated by living things. What are they doing to their habitat? Then try to answer your main question.

I agree (and science is figuring this out also) that our biological carbon reservoirs could be managed better, so as to even draw down current atmospheric carbon faster than normal, or at least offset current emissions; and that we still need to cut current emissions also. It just amazes me that with the overwhelming need for jobs around the world, how nobody seems to see an opportunity to employ billions of people restoring soils, building new soils, and planting trees. The value that such a change would create, over just a generation or so, is even more overwhelmingly great when compared to the value that any other scheme to fix things would create (per unit of change). Of course that is counting socio-economic and health dimensions, in addition to the ecological and environmental dimensions. They may have deleted your account if they thought you didn't know what you were talking about, or were a spam or marketing agent, or just some sort of wild nut. Your translation and typing may contribute to that, at first glance, without a closer look. Sorry, the world is quick to judge. But.... === Speaking of judgement, the authority of an author ...or how much credibility that author has... is a major factor in getting a manuscript published. Unless you are an established scientist, who has already been accepted as a "co-author" on other scientific papers or manuscripts, then you generally don't have enough authority to even be accepted into the "peer-review process," which is the first part of scientific publishing. In general.... The best you could hope for currently, is to write a "letter to the editor" of some magazines, and even newspapers; and hope somebody will print your information, observations, and recommendations. And making it short and easy-to-understand is key to getting anything accepted for general publication. You might do best by just copying quotes from other sources, that also see the same solutions, and then arrange them into a short and simple thesis. My presentations, about these same solutions, are based on quotes from scientific books and reports, and magazine articles. The citations then, for those quotes, are "the authority" for the information I try to share with others. As you can see from what was said above by Johnny E, "Part of the problem is planting enough trees to absorb Human CO2," others agree with you. And others also see that soils are an even larger reservoir of carbon, which we could manage better, that could also strongly and quickly affect the future climate. The scientific evidence for this has been discovered just within the past decade or so, at most, and so that information has not yet become widely known or taught yet. And often, discoveries in one discipline of science, are not recognized as significant to the concerns of other disciplines, until a more integrated perspective is developed. The newly recognized significance of soil carbon has only just recently been making it into the scientific books and reports, and some magazine articles, as journalist look for new advances to write about. But most journalists (and scientists too) think that soil carbon is only about agriculture, instead of also being about climate. And it is a complicated link with climate to explain through simple journalism. That is another part of the problem, since these solutions are not exciting journalistic topics. Bio-sequestration solutions are not high-tech, except in some unique ways, and they don't involve exotic new materials or high-priced equipment that requires various specialists to operate properly. A few people can't get rich quickly, but billions of people could double or triple their subsistence level of income; and that is just not exciting enough, it seems. Keep working at this! Within a few years, or decades at most, these new discoveries and "paradigm shifts" will become widely known enough to be seen as obvious, low-cost, high-return, value-generating, solutions. Soil-carbon is a good investment for the future; buy low-carbon soil, sell high-carbon soil. ~

"Claims of harm" from agriculture in general, to the environment, are documented; and GMO cropping practices may be exacerbating the problems, despite their intention to "save" soil carbon and reduce erosion. "Claims of harm" to people are not documented, but did you see the new information I posted? Had you heard about that before? We are just barely beginning to understand our own genomes and epigenetics; or that HDLs are about our immune system, rather than our circulatory system. I'd think investigation, at least, and perhaps caution is not "unwarrented." === Personally, I don't much care how we screw up our health with technology and/or GMOs, because in a few generations that can all be worked out. That is presuming however, that we still have a relatively stable and well-functioning civilization in which to pursue some better health perspectives. If we screw up the soil, as GMOs are encouraging us to do even more extensively, then that future with enough stability looks much less likely. ~ p.s. ...from: The American Society for Microbiology How Microbes Can Help Feed the World, 2013 "Historically, traditional plant breeding and genetic engineering, irrigation, and chemical treatments like fertilizers and pesticides have all been used to enhance crop productivity.... Optimizing the microbial communities of plants offers an entirely new approach to enhancing productivity. Indeed, such an approach is the opposite of past management strategies...."

Such as? Be specific, now (if you can). When most of the studies on GMOs were done, science hadn't figured out certain things yet. Now, or soon enough, things may look different. Look into microRNAs http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11104-013-1907-6# ...and then, from a search: microrna role in human health Scholarly articles for microrna role in human health … microRNAs with possible roles in murine and human … - ‎Sempere - Cited by 994 Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers … - ‎Mitchell - Cited by 2230 MicroRNA responses to cellular stress - ‎Marsit - Cited by 242 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Search Results "...that this tiny RNA molecule may have a big role to play in humans as well." I first ran across this information in The Journal of Lipid Research, where they talked about the microRNAs from various rice strains affecting the HDL/LDL ratios in people. I ran across this at a time when I was learning about how very differently the plants will apportion their resources, depending upon the nutrient deficiencies or excesses, and how soil carbon is also strongly affected by this. My interest is soil carbon, but it made me think about how much the human diet has changed over our recent evolutionary history. A recent Scientific American article speaks to how strongly our immune systems (and hence longevity) have been influenced by changing diets. I tried to find my original link, but could only find: Our new, energy-intensive and industrial-scale, agricultural systems are changing the biochemical profiles of plants, as well as soils, quite dramatically. Some unintended consequences have already been identified (regarding changes to soils); so in terms of human health, some unintended consequences may also be recognized soon enough. [But the soil affects more people and biodiversity, over a much longer timespan, so that should be the main concern, right?] ~

Any bumps, within the overall rising (or uphill) “saw-tooth” pattern, are fairly meaningless, aren’t they? The point is the steady (anthropogenic) uphill change, which is acidifying our oceans, and melting the cryosphere and the mountain glaciers in the temperate and tropical zones. We are putting much more “change” into the earth system (and much more quickly) than the change between the MWP & LIA. But that change, which caused great difficulty for civilization over those centuries, was miniscule when compared to what we are now pushing the planet to do ...within decades. Unless we undo this change.... Civilization’s remnants (the powerful parts) might adapt well enough, but the rest of biodiversity will dwindle into a composition of the victors from whatever extinction level event this punctuation to the equilibrium will bring. It looks to be a "fun" ride: "...like smooth-smooth-smooth-SteveO riding downhill in a grocery cart... weeeee!" Though civilization’s ride “downhill” has historically tended to be more bumpity-bump-bump than smooth. ~

Thanks, it may be a problem with the new course and software. I got "44 years" as the dt [the 'solution' to the formula] ...when only 1/5 of the gas would be (is) remaining (from the way they worded the question). I added that to 1988, to get "2032," which is the 'answer' they marked wrong. I have considered trying 2031, thinking they could mean 1987 as the last full “baseline” year, but wanted to check my reasoning and math comprehension first. I'm not misunderstanding the whole dC/dt thing, I hope; this is just a simple linear relationship? === If 44 sounds correct, I can still use that number to finish the other "parts" to the problem. Thanks again! ~

This is from an online [EdX] introductory class in "climate science" ...of course: So tau = 55, and E = 0, from the information given, I assume. Seems to me, that if dC/dt is the ratio, and the concentration falls by 4/5ths, then the decay time (t) [...the "solution"] would equal or 'fall by' that same 4/5 ratio ... when applied to tau. === ...and then adjusted for the baseline year, to find the answer to their question, right? === It seems straightforward enough, and my 'solution' seems "realistic;" but my online 'answer' gets a red X, instead of the green checkmark. What am I missing in the math, or misreading about the question, above here? Thanks! ~

...hey! Hope you don't mind the two free edits (just to encourage you to justifiably impress people further ...or words to that effect), for word use (then/than) and for punctuation (the semi-colon), in the enlarged font. I had thought I saw Seth's name, in the credits for Cosmos, and now I'm surprised (ashamedly so) to discover it is the same Seth. Good for Seth MacFarlane! :thumbsup: And thanks for caring yourself! I have blogged about the “public perception of science” (a phrase you might search) and it’s hard to know what to say about the importance of scientific literacy ...especially for good citizenship. That is to say, being a good citizen should entail some (of at least a certain minimal set of) responsibilities, such as the most basic scientific literacy. That should include the notion that science is a tool (or is a process, with proper methods of use) rather than an ideology, and that science has authority based on historical and continuing and increasingly repeatable utility, as well as predictability and yadayadayada successes. Well, I don’t want to write a debatable thesis paper here. ...but please see comments below. Thanks again! ...off the top of my head, I notice the media will both over-hype and under-sell. They are doing their job, trying to drive up ratings, so.... So it is hard not to hype some "new" tidbit or soundbite that gets extracted from the current research. Hey, it is the "current research," so it must be the 'cutting edge' of science; and that should boost ratings! But that is not good (or real) science. The "well-vetted" science is what gets used as a tool, not the "cutting edge" of science ...regardless of how counter-intuitive that metaphor might be. And the well-vetted stuff isn't sexy enough, or it's not new enough, to rate the ratings. Over the past few years I've been trying to publicize several "paradigm shifts" from within certain scientific disciplines, that have occurred within just the past decade (or 15 years now); but until those filter out into the teaching literature, not many people (unless it pertains to their specific interests) understand or care to notice. There seems to be a 5 to 20 year lag, at least for most disciplines, for the new stuff to become mainstream. "Specific interests" are another problem. Even within the sciences, most scientists are so specialized that they cannot appreciate the many parallels between disciplines or the connections between various disciplines. Integrative perspectives are becoming more appreciated, but that doesn't help much with the public perception of science, until that integrative perspective also becomes taught as a basic tool. But I just heard a point worth quoting! === I liked Neil deGrasse Tyson's reply, when Stephen Colbert asked him what Carl Sagan would have been most surprised by ...since his passing in 1996 ...about science or ..about what most "has changed in our knowledge of the universe." Of Carl Sagan.... Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "I think what would surprise him the most is that we still have to argue that science is something important in society." "That's what would surprise him the most ...for starters!" -Neil deGrasse Tyson ~ p.s. "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck