Essay

Fire is just the light given off by smoke (and ignitable gases), when that smoke and gas combine with oxygen. That's why burning is called oxidation. And that is why the flames are shaped fairly closely to the shape of the "licks" of smoke, and hot rising gas plumes. Flashover is an example of excess smoke suddenly combining with oxygen and igniting (lighting up) in flame. But "fire" itself, is only the light given off when electrons rearrange themselves--as oxygen combines with those atoms in the smoke and other gases expanding out from any heated fuel. The smoke and gases (from the heated fuel) are rich in carbon and hydrogen, and so form CO2 & H2O after combining most completely with oxygen. === And with sparks, I think it is also the light we are seeing, as electrons settle back down, after getting excited (insert joke here). ~

The DNA probably has more regulatory functions, for those protein-coding genes, than there are protein-coding genes. Google: "Sean B. Carroll" limb shape ...to get some general ideas about these processes. Also learn about "quorum sensing" and realize that while science doesn't yet know about how mammalian cells do this (that I know about), our organs and tissues must do something similar to quorum sensing. Edit: No doubt, Gap Junctions and Tight Junctions are critical. Search gap junction function ...for fun. Then put the two concepts together, realizing that quorum sensing is a genetically-mediated process also, and you can see how everything "senses" where to go and what to be. ~?

Tim, thanks for the compliment. I wish I could make nice graphs such as this; however the graph is from Scientific American. It was from this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming ...with lots of ads and pop-ups. Or you can access a blog-linked summary via: http://climatecrocks.com/2011/06/29/graph-of-the-day-scientific-american-on-todays-greenhouse-vs-history-the-petm/ The blog also has an 8 minute video of Jim Hansen explaining where the CO2 came from, 55 Mya; and he also mentions how "relatively stable" the climate has been for civilization, over the past 12,000 years. I'll try to forward your points and objections on to the folks at NASA and Scientific American. ~

Thanks for the help with that notion. I guess EM would need to be derived from some more fundamental property, which did interact with DM, if we want to find an aether here in the non-linear distribution of Dark Matter. Thanks for the perspective! ~

Couldn't it be a Dark Aether? === I don't understand the OP, but the notion of "the aether" being related to dark matter seemed obvious to me as soon as I heard about dark matter and dark energy... though I'm a biochemist. Do the effects of dark matter not match the supposed effects of an aether? ~

TINY ENGINES OF EVOLUTION http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tiny-plants-that-once-ruled-the-sea Tiny Plants That Once Ruled the Seas [Preview] "Around 250 million years ago animals in the seas began to diversify with gusto. Remarkably, the evolution of minute plants known as phytoplankton probably powered that dramatic explosion" “If you could hop onboard a time machine and visit the earth as it was 500 million years ago, during the Paleozoic era, you'd be forgiven for thinking you had traveled not to another time period but to another planet altogether.” .... “But after the Permian mass extinction wiped out the vast majority of marine life, including most of the green algae, new kinds of phytoplankton appeared, starting with coccolithophores, so named for the calcium carbonate shells, or “coccoliths,” they secrete, possibly for protection.” –p.44 Scientific American, June 2013 http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v308/n6/box/scientificamerican0613-40_BX1.html I know this isn't the right period (Permian), but the process is similar, plus their chart goes back to the Cambrian. ~

On average, CO2 is linear; but it will vibrate through non-linear and asymmetrical shapes. I'd expect the double bonds are what make the absorption peak(s) much sharper or narrower, while single bonds absorb over a broader range of wavelengths as their bonds don't resist deformation as much.

...and after 2100, who will care? ...Where we are today.... "So what?" -->You are Here! ~

And, in addition to the great replies above, we should also note: It's because those "oxides" are triatomic, instead of diatomic (as with O2 and N2), that they are better greenhouse gases. How a molecule can vibrate, determines which frequencies of energy it will absorb. The diatomic molecules can't stretch and bend and rotate in a way that "harmonizes" with the IR wavelengths, so they don't absorb IR well. Triatomics, such as O=C=O (CO2) and H-O-H (water), have a shape that lends itself to the asymmetries required for the particular vibrations that absorb certain IR frequencies. Methane and SF6 also can vibrate in ways that will strongly absorb IR frequencies. I'm not sure how long these molecules will store that energy (vibrate) until they re-radiate the energy, but I recall hearing that CO2 re-emits its IR energy within ten minutes usually--and randomly, in any direction, of course. If you read up on how to interpret an IR spectrogram, and see which wavelengths are associated with the particular vibrations of certain bonds, then you can predict (in theory) which molecules will be good greenhouse gases. ~

...Right, there are also the religious-based denialists, as DH mentions; and ......and Split Infinity probably also knows that the military is looking for renewable fuel resources they can use in the field. So Arc, That sounds very reasonable, and I think I agree with what you've said and your take on the various groups. I know that many people who take (and vote) the "liberal" perspective, also go in for crop circles, ufos, and crystal healing powers, as if it were also mainstream well-established science. Everybody seems to have at least one irrational contribution to their being asa whole. I'd also agree that many of those new-age types don't have a reality-based understanding of the climate change problem; but just accept the doom-n-gloom predictions of scientists, since it does support their contention that unbridled Capitalism is driving civilization off of a cliff. As with any complex "wicked" problem, you can't expect consensus or a "silver bullet" type of solution; and so doing nothing differently, while waiting for certainty, is a trap to be avoided. Immigration and Health Care are similarly wicked problems, and those are just problems at a "national" level. It's not surprising that action on a global level is difficult. On that recently repeated NOVA show, about Ape Intelligence, they mentioned that a major difference between us and them was how we can cooperatively hold "shared goals, based on shared commitments." I don't get too concerned about how people justify or rationalize their commitment to a commonly recognized goal, but I'm always happy to help them learn more about the details of why the goal is important or how their commitment can help... as if 350 ppm would really solve our problems--lol! But achieving 350 ppm would be a huge step in the right direction; and so, whatever rationalization one adopts, it is a worthy goal. === If only we could stop our forward progress... but we can't; so I'd vote for turning our metaphorical Titanic into the minefield and utilizing our best eyes forward to try picking one slim chance of a route into safer waters. When people cooperate on a shared goal, they can create a different future for themselves. That doesn't work out so well when short-term or isolated ideological goals are pursued, but our varied management of fire (energy), land (agriculture), and civilization itself, are better examples of successful cooperation. We are really just talking about continuing our development of "techniques" to better manage fire, land, and civilization. And specifically, we are not talking about "self imposed economic hardship of permanent levels or reduced quality of life for any extended period." ...even if we deserve some.... I mean, c'mon, there ain't no free lunch--right? But it's also not about banning fossil fuels! Last century, we got rich beyond the avarice of kings, by developing a technological world that would be the envy of gods; and now we get to do it again! Sure the people who had careers making buggy whips had to adjust, but the Titan of History can't stop its forward progress. We do need to recognize the value of carbon, in a more "reality-based," comprehensive assessment, sort of way; but there are new technologies and economic sectors itching to be borne into the future, based on that more reality-based management of resources. === For liberals, I highlight the ecological dangers... and the opportunities to finally solve global problems of poverty, hunger, disease, and oppression... related to not acting, or acting on climate change, respectively. And for conservatives, I highlight the economic dangers... and the opportunities to create new jobs, new markets, technological innovations, and new economic sectors... again, related to not acting or acting--to account for physical reality--respectively. Most people don't know the details of that physical reality, or exactly how it endangers our ecosystems and our economies. Even when people want to understand the relationships, they still are often overwhelmed by the complexities and details and science. It would be like wanting to understand all the details of how chemotherapy or vaccines or antibiotics work; for most people they are satisfied accepting the accumulated scientific wisdom. === ...But more on topic: American Exceptionalism is a reality, whether it is for good or not; and whether it is based on irrational rationalizations or fundamentalistic ideologies, the American mindset is an exceptional one asa whole. Only Ausie Exceptionalism comes close to being as extreme as ours, istm. Of course, they are both countries mostly formed from the misfits and rejects of an "old, established" civilization. As mentioned in post #2, when core beliefs or fundamental perspectives are challenged and undone, the "grieving process" must occur--for which the first stage is Denial--as one struggles to cling to the safety and comfort of the familiar past. The bigger they are, the harder they fall... or the harder their adjustment will be, and the stronger their denial will thus be. Challenging that American Exceptionalism, which is based on Free-Market Fundamentalism, leads to an "exceptional" grieving response, and thus an exceptional denial response; followed by exceptional anger [2nd stage] responses, if you keep pushing. Liberals quickly move on to the third, so-called "bargaining," stage. It is a bit more exceptional in many Americans than in others; but Denial is still just part of the normal grieving process. ~

...feels more scientific? Arc, let me take a stab at this "rational/irrational" perspective. There are many rational reasons not to worry about any long-term problems or decisions. Mostly, "rational" becomes much more obvious and relevant for short-term problems or decisions, and so it is easy to point to many rational decisions based on short term self-interests. It just occurred to me that any two perspectives, which operate and make decisions based upon differing time scales, will probably see the other perspective as irrational. Obviously, rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic is rational, if you know the ship is unsinkable and could see no deadline. Others, who had enough information about the design and/or new conditions of the ship, could rationally predict the need to be more concerned, because they would see a deadline. Hmmmm, I guess I'm only saying that more information will help lead to a better informed decision. But specifically, more information about the long-term consequences and dangers would help inform a more balanced decision: balanced between the many short-term, and rational, reasons to not worry; and the few long-term, and significant, reasons to worry. Information about significance may help "weight" the rationality underlying various decisions, which inform what AGW means to you. === Personally I like AGW, here and now, because we get warmer nights and winters, and we don't get much bad or extreme weather here, and we have air conditioning too. And in my lifetime, things won't change too much (more than they already have... due mostly to population growth and the consequent habitat and resource and biodiversity loss). But I can see where this is going. And I can also see how a much larger change will be wrought globally, based on the physical properties of oxidized carbon--see oh two. You probably agree we shouldn't be running up too large of a National Debt, since it will saddle our kids with inflation and/or sluggish economic growth--more or less--right? That sounds rational to me, even though I want stimulus spending now. Rationally it is easy for me to justify various stimulus-spending programs, since they should make it easier to bring the debt down in the future. But at some point, the weight of debt building up will outweigh the benefits of stimulus, and decisions that seem rational in the perspective of one time frame, then seem irrational in the perspective of another time frame. Climate debt, more fully accounted for in your perspective, may help you weight the rationality of your future decisions (or decisions relating to your future). The science underlying the "Greenhouse theory" is not based on observed changes in the temperature trends, or on the observed net melting of land and sea ice, or on the observed changes in plant growth or animal migration patterns, or on any observed trends. The theory is based on the physical properties of carbon dioxide (oxidized carbon), which globally continues to acidify the oceans and soils, and add some fraction of a Watt per square meter of heating, since its solubility and IR spectrum aren't based on beliefs. Changing significant factors, by more than 100% within our lifetime, will condemn our children's grandchildren to a debt repayment beyond their ability to cope. === This may or may not be true for economic (the dismal science) debt, but it is rationally much more likely to be true for a physical science debt, as we radically change the long-evolved atmospheric chemistry of this spaceship Earth, where we recently evolved to live in relative stability. Yes, the differences between the MWP & the LIA count as relative stability, when you see what the planet's climate usually does, historically, before civilizations arose. Our current "climate forcing" will cause changes, after a century or so, much more severe than the change between the LIA & the MWP. And it was long before our species evolved, that the oceans last acidified to a point where long-evolved communities and eco-webs would be disrupted, and food chains supporting biodiversity would collapse, and successions of more primitive species bloom as newly created niches evolve. In other words, the 6th mass extinction event may be problematic for our species' survival, and certainly it will be problematic for civilization's survival. It would be a shame if our great-grandchildren didn't have computers, or an internet to access, just because civilization had broken down a little too far and for too long. It would be surprising if we didn't repeat the usual pattern of "rise-n-fall" that civilizations seem to follow... now that we operate as a global civilization; but I try to remain hopeful. And learning more about the long-term perspective helps to weight which "rational" decisions are important for individuals over the short term, and which are important for civilization over the long term. Hopefully, significance, as well as rationality, needs to also be accounted for. ~

I'm going to enjoy this .pdf more fully, later, when I have some free time. http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~lintner/tropmet/Lecture8.pdf But, if you could ask questions relative to the .pdf, it might be easier to narrow in on specific answers... if you don't see how that part of cloud formation occurs, from this link. ~

http://www.snowballearth.org/slides/Ch13-2.gif This (above) is a link to a large, more detailed image of the situation. Note the "log" scale for pO2 on right. Note O2 spikes that are associated with glaciations, which are caused by "all" the atmospheric CO2 being converted into biomass, such as when algae first evolved, and when life (plants) first came up onto land about 500Mya, and especially when wood evolved around 250 Mya--but before woodrot fungus evolved,. But here is another more general picture of the situation: Pressures of the ancient atmospheres were much higher than today. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html "The atmosphere could have started at higher pressure and then decreased continuously through Earth’s life to ~4–5 bar ~100 Mya and down to 1 bar today (curve C)." A few years ago, in a university Atmospheric Science 101 class... I learned it was 10 to 100 bars (curve C), at least, during the early Archaen, when volcanic out-gassing regenerated an atmosphere--after the original atmosphere was blown off by the Hadaen bombardments. ~

But for ocean currents, westerly means to the west; instead of from the west, as with winds. === Hmmm. Cold high pressure might be higher than warm high pressure; it would make sense. But to look at weather, it is the relative pressures that matter; rather than the difference in absolute pressures of an air mass between summer and winter. === It seems easiest to think of air masses as either expanding (being heated) or contracting due to heat loss (relative to the surrounding air). For the Northern Hemisphere, as an air mass expands, the Coriolis Effect causes clockwise rotation; and conversely a contracting airmass will move counterclockwise. Cold air that gets dragged out behind (or south) of the polar jet stream (or "dips" in the jet stream) will begin warming, expanding to rotate clockwise, forming a high pressure system. And moist tropical air, which develops shade-producing clouds as it rises, will not heat as much as the surrounding, cloud-free air; so it will contract (lowering the pressure), and rotate counterclockwise. Similarly, a warm air mass that gets entrained north of the polar jet stream (or is "run over" by a dip in the jet stream) will also begin contracting to become a low pressure system. The same is more or less true for the subtropical jet steam--and the air masses on either side of it. Expanding air masses (high pressure) rotate clockwise, and contracting (low pressure) air masses rotate counterclockwise. ~

That sounds very reasonable to me. If it is not correct, I'd like to know why. ~

...even civilization is one of the forces contributing to the overall equilibration process. And.... As Arete pointed out, "Succession and disturbance are natural forces. The assertion that nature is in "constant equilibrium is trivially proven false...." I didn't read the links, but hopefully there is a mention of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which describes processes operating in the real world. The concept of balance or equilibrium or homeostasis or a perfected symbiosis is useful to help understand the forces involved, but those concepts do not describe a "real" static state. Balance may be achieved, but only fleetingly as the "non-equilibrium" forces battle it out--in reality--in much the same way that walking is basically a "constantly corrected" fall. Science is just a tool for helping us to understand reality. If religion (as well as science) was understood to be nothing more than that, maybe there wouldn't be so much conflict generated by attempts to reify either; but it is easy to confuse concepts with reality. ~

...the "insanity" is manipulating things for short term greed... BUT we have a place in the natural system--a "new natural" system. Fire & agricultural management need to be refined, and valued for maintaining a soil-carbon balance that keeps the temperate latitudes from turning either tropical or arctic; in effect, holding the climate stable--warm enough to prevent runaway glacial conditions--but cool enough to also keep the many significant polar contributions stable. This seems to have been the vector or direction of the planet's recent [~50 Myr] evolution--from a gaian perspective--maximizing biodiversity and robust ecosystem resilience. The megafauna/herbivores to soil-sequestration cycle, which your equation highlighted, worked for 50 million years to cool the planet. Finally it had cooled enough, and the need to slow your soil sequestration cycle developed, about 5 Mya. At that point, an adept biomass manager could fill the niche created by the evolution of those temperate, "arable" soils. Our evolution has been a long and complex dance with fire, from using fire as a tool, to using fire for making more tools, and using fire to make agriculture possible--even today (N-fertilization). So recently we've done that--to excess--and so now we need to refine our actions and, instead of benefiting from eco-myopia and short-term greed, we should increasingly value the benefits of long-term intentions and sustainable goals for our resources. We just need to better match our abilities with the parameters of our niche--now that we more fully understand those parameters [such as the significance of humus and the rhizosphere]--or else another species will come along to fill that niche. ~ [edit: bolded]

You should also include fire and agriculture within your “big picture.” The equation should read: More ruminant dung = more vegetation = more carbon fixation = less GreenHouseGas = lower/cooler temperature, which generally describes the past 50 million years of Gaia’s evolution—including the rise of mammals (esp. herbivores) to predominance, the rise of the grasses to predominance, and the consequent rise of temperate soils that predominate in the temperate latitudes. This allowed enough carbon to be locked up within soils, so that ice could accumulate in the polar regions, and a whole host of consequences follow from that over the past 15-20 Myr—including the development of the “ice-age” cycles we evolved within over the past 5Myr. Through the “mastery” of fire and agriculture, we have geoengineered the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems over the past few thousands of years, so the normal glacial cycle has been disrupted; but there is no way we’re going back (intentionally) to the days of the megafauna, as a solution to global warming. We need to find another way to restore that carbon-storage function—which the temperate soils did so well—to our extensively managed agricultural soils, and degraded soils, around the globe. As managers of fire and agriculture, we need to replace the function of your free-range herbivores. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/fig_tab/ncomms1053_F6.html And we need to do that within the next generation, while doubling food production, restoring degraded lands and waters, and not degrading any new lands or waters. Convertible husbandry and longer cycles of crop rotations can achieve many of these goals. Restoring humic content to soils, restoring the benefits that natural fires brought to soils (biochar), and rebuilding degraded soils, are ways to achieve these goals. Have you heard of the many groups working on these sorts of solutions? ~

Are you talking about the observations on the black hole at the center of our own galaxy? ...Because those studies & observations are not based on gamma ray bursts or, I think, those other things you mentioned as "evidence" for black holes. ~?

Aren't the observations, which show or "prove" that blackholes exist, enough to conquer your myth about modern society?

Epigenetics operates upon the basic DNA system that evolution uses. Additionally, natural selection (or being "affected by our environment") also continues to operate on the heritability systems--which simply also include epigenetic changes. It's not that epigenetics is some new inheritance system, but that it provides for a richer and more diverse system--that we already have a basic understanding of.... Or words to that effect. ~

Our brains naturally think of "space" as emptiness, and we think of an "aether" as somethingness. But that is a trick of our perceptions, conceptions, and preconceptions; or simply a trick of semantics. Break your preconceptions and think not of "space," but of spacetime. And think of spacetime as something that expands to fill some "true" emptiness (of which we have no knowledge). Then, spacetime itself can be defined as, or "becomes," the aether. Alternatively, it seems to me that the Higgs Field fulfills a lot of the qualities of an aether. === But whichever (if those aren't possibly two ways of saying the same thing), I think semantic concepts such as space and time make it hard to unify theories. we need to understand space (actually spacetime) differently, as something with complexity, nuance, and structure. From that perspective, light could be just our perception of spacetime propagating itself into some emptiness (or perhaps even overlapping some other, pre-existing, spacetime). The speed of light may be the speed at which spacetime can propagate, or it may be the speed at which different spacetimes can adjust to each other changing... or words along those lines; like a "crack," or the "leading edge" of a fault/fissure, in spacetime. We see waves because spacetime is perceived as 4-D, but we perceive mass as point-like or surface-like objects. ...hmmmm, maybe I'm equating spacetime with energy here; oh right, it is equating mass with propagation (since I linked propagation of light with propagation of spacetime). Might that fit with the Higgs concept? ...Anyway.... === Or alternatively, there is no spacetime; and everything is touching everything else. Spacetime is just an illusion (our perception), which represents the changing relationships within an eleven dimensional solid (that I like to think of as the "FSM"). ....Just brainstormin' here. === All hail the 11-D Flying Spaghetti Monster! ~ p.s. re: "...waves because spacetime is perceived as 4-D, but we perceive mass as point-like or...." I was trying to unify the perception of wave energy (propagating), and that energy when it is "collapsed" into a point [as when it is absorbed by some mass (or other "concentrated" spacetime)]... and then it acts like a particle. Right?

And if you look closely at that geological history, you can discern a trend or direction of change that almost seems like an intention (Gaiaintention). ...And, in addition to adapting more quickly, we could also try to slow the rate of change back to geologic-time scales, at least for global biosphere forcers. Learning different perspectives on history is what woke me up to these looming plights. History, including geological history, might serve to replace many of the "focusing functions" that religion used to provide in our societies. Instead of geoengineering, we need... Gaiaengineering = new jobs and careers to help build a new economy. ~

Many of the layers you'll be studying are simply petrified soils--buried and compressed (and so, heated) by time and newer soils. Older soils are also changed by the humus filtering down from above, as those older soils turn into the rock layers we see today. === It's not all organic matter/goo. There is the sand and silt and clay that give different qualities to the humus and organic matter; and the process of Humification and Diagenesis make it all so much more interesting. Current chemical analysis can often reveal the story of a lump of coal or a drop of oil, much like a diary of a carbon atom covering 100s of million of years; the story of slime and goo. fyi: ...you might should look up diagenesis and humification.... See also (google/search): Cannel or boghead coals ...as well as Archaeopteris (not archaeopteryx). ...and then recall that early in terrestrial evolution, the entire planet might be covered with just a few species of pollen-rich plants/trees/bamboos. Biodiversity back in the early days of land plants was very limited; but when something was successful, it really took over--for a time. ...AND the plant/wood decay organisms hadn't evolved yet.... OMG!!! No decay, but burial of all that oily carbon-rich wood! Similar to how lots of oil-rich algae got buried in anoxic muds--with no decay, just diagenetic fossilization. ~ Enjoy!