Essay

Your link appears to back up what Athena is "preaching." Her "long-winded" explanation of the perspective behind this thread was very good, and not preaching, I'd say. And the more I learn about what Athena is trying to convey, in spite of the capitalized reference to the Nationalist Socialist, the more it seems to fill in some gaps in understanding how we come to find ourselves in this somewhat untenable position--with a populace ignorant of global concerns or considerations. [edit]...or: --with a population ignorant of many abstract thinking skills.[/edit] I may be off here, but I think those "global concerns or considerations" represent the "God perspective" (dissociated from any religions, as Athena emphasizes), which this thread is about: Why do we need that Global/God perspective? ~ p.s. ...from the link on the Vocation Education Act. This means that there are over 12,000,000 people engaged in agriculture in this country who are not trained to deal with the soil in such a way as to make it produce, through scientific methods, what it should yield in order to sustain the present and future life of this Nation. 3. That they should be designed to prepare boys and girls over 14 years of age for useful and profitable employment in agriculture and in the trades and industries. There is a great and crying need of providing vocational education of this character for every part of the United States--to conserve and develop our resources; to promote a more productive and prosperous agriculture; to prevent the waste of human labor; to supplement apprenticeship; to increase the wage-earning power of our productive workers; to meet the increasing demand for trained workmen; to offset the increased cost of living. Vocational education is therefore needed as a wise business investment for this Nation, because our national prosperity and happiness are at stake and our position in the markets of the world can not otherwise be maintained. National grants for agriculture, and trade and industrial education are justified: (1).... ...national grants expended through Federal agencies for studies, investigations, and reports furthering the efforts of the States to place the work of their vocational schools on a scientific and business-like basis. (2) by introducing into our educational system the aim of utility, ...making it purposeful and useful. Industrial and social unrest is due in large measure to a lack of a system of practical education fitting workers for their calling. Every State superintendent ...and great national educational, civic, industrial, and commercial organizations, representing more than 12,000,000 people, have repeatedly gone on record as believing that a system of vocational education was absolutely necessary to the future welfare of the nation. (4) to give interest and prestige in the States to the work of preparing our youth for useful and productive service. European countries have gained much advantage over us because they are already in possession of this knowledge. === ~ ...see, it is those damned Europeans!

I've been swayed to be a bit more optimistic about the future. It is encouraging to see that someone so young recognizes the looming horizon, and sees that science and education can provide a path forward to solutions. Most critically, it's encouraging to realize that he sees these solutions are harder to achieve, so long as people refuse to accept or understand the evidence that science presents about the future. Have we done any planning for the future, as a Nation, since the Carter Administration? Seems as if we leave it up to the Giant Invisible Hand of the marketplace, anymore. ~

Check out this May 2003(?) article from the American Society for Microbiology: http://forms.asm.org...x.asp?bid=16349 Bacteria became a distinctive domain when its first member developed a cell wall to protect itself against internally generated osmotic pressure "Three attributes seem essential for life and evolution: a source of energy; a capacity for making specific, even if imprecise, informational macromolecules; and a capacity for replicating. Although other properties would be useful and valuable for success and gradually emerged, seemingly a strong, stress-resistant wall was not initially required. However, as metabolic capabilities grew, the primordial organism's cytoplasm likely became increasingly crowded with an assortment of biochemical ingredients and salts, leading to an ever-higher osmotic pressure and making that crowded cell's ability to withstand turgor pressure valuable, if not essential." I currently have his 2001 book, Bacterial Growth & Form (cited in link above), checked out from a local library. ~

~I think physics already understands how life works, if that is what you mean; and I also could add that.... Those "organic/inorganic" distinctions are fairly arbitrary, with definitions shifting depending on which discipline or sector of science is involved ...and on how developed or detailed any sector is at a given time. ...or words to that effect. But mainly I wanted to confirm that you understand the laws remain the same; that is the laws of physics don't change in biology or chemistry. Biology is based on the same laws of physics that also govern chemistry. Maybe this has just stated the obvious, but something made me wonder if you saw it differently. Does that make sense? ~

Wow, maybe there is hope for the world after all. ...and there will be Death Panels too, I'm sure === You seem to have made some mistakes here. This link doesn't discuss James Lovelock at all. It seems to be by the author, David Shearman, of the book you link to later in the post. Your chronology makes it seem as if the author of that book, "Twenty-First Century Anti-Democracy: Theory and Practice in the World," is Linkola, however the author is Shearman. === And what is this tripe about Lovelock becoming a "recent convert to the sceptical camp?" Got any citations for this? I sure appreciate his Gaia Theory, and find it useful; so I hope that hasn't been discredited also--after his "conversion" to the zealously oblique. Has he also changed his opinion about climate problems possibly being as serious as a war? Doesn't he still think climate science is valid? [Hint: Lovelock displays equal disdain for those who do not accept science on climate change: "They've got their own religion."] -James Lovelock http://www.science20...l_warming-91406 ...and also "his highly influential hypothesis that the Earth [behaves as if it] is a self-regulating, single organism" still seems to be valid. Whew! But I'd think Lovelock acknowledging that over-the-top or unfounded alarmism can harm public perception shouldn't be held up as any sort of conversion to the other camp; but rather as a reasonable stance, shouldn't it? === Linkola, in your quote above... writing a novel(?), may be warning about how "greenwashing" can be used as an excuse for almost anything. Some governments will grab at any convenient excuse to frighten a population into relinquishing liberty; just look at the whole war on terror hype. Corporations already seem to be wise to various greenwashing strategies, and some governments adopt corporate strategies to extend their power; so it seems like a worthwhile cautionary vision. An informed and scientifically literate citizenry is crucial to the health of liberty. Or am I mistaken about Linkola? Are you saying he is genuinely advocating for eco-gulags as a good and appropriate thing? That was your purpose, wasn't it; to show crazy leftist ideas? === I just don't hear much in the media about the environment, especially from leading environmentalists; so please keep us posted. I can only imagine that if something got into the media, it might sound rash because it might be a response to Tod Aiken, from the U. S. House Science Committee. I'm looking forward to his new book, 101 Things Women's Bodies Can Do, but I want to first read the book you mentioned, "Twenty-First Century Anti-Democracy: Theory and Practice in the World". That sounds like a good follow-up to the book I'm currently reading, by Johan Galtung, entitled "The Fall of the US Empire--And Then What? Successors, Regionalism or Globalization? US Fascism or US Blossoming?" [fyi... Johan Galtung (not John Galt) is known as the "Father of Peace Research"] This book, published by TRANSCEND University Press in 2009, is available from www.transcend.org/tup Dedication To a country I love, the United States of America: You will swim so much better without that imperial albatross around your neck. Drown it before it drowns you, and let a thousand flowers blossom! ~J. Galtung Ack! Another ranting radical crazy Leftist; run for your lives! He's pushing for a blossoming, and that is my goal too. How 'bout you; sickened, heartened, skeptical? ~

Thanks for getting me to take some pictures! Yeah, F'nBook! Ya gotta log in to see anything! I'll update this if I get all of them posted elsewhere, but most of the critical ones are up here now. === There are many examples of similar stoves on You-Tube (search Rocket Stoves, biochar stoves, or gasifier stoves), made from coffee cans, etc.; but most are passive or use direct forced air, instead of recycling the smoke in a vortex. Any flame that exits should be diffuse and clean (see photo), rather than dense and sooty. * 6:21. Diffuse flames still swirl after exiting, while concentrated flames swirl in a blur near the bottom of the inner bucket, above and around the fuel. === Overall: Six 1/8-inch holes in steel 5-qt. dish, inside of 11-inch diameter black bucket (with twelve 1/8-inch holes around its base), inside of 18-inch diameter trash can (with 1 hole around its base to permit the blower nozzle), and a 15-cm --just under 6-inch-- hole centered in an oversized (22-inch) lid on top. [Not Pictured here; see above] === * 6:13. Aside from the one big chunk and the kindling at center, the bowl is filled with medium sized chunks like the two or three visible around the kindling. Stainless bowl is set down into bottom of bucket. === A different, 11-inch diameter, tube could be used to extend the sides of the stainless bowl up to the height which the black bucket currently does; instead, the black bucket only serves that purpose now--but it was convenient--or just use the black bucket without the stainless liner inside (if you have a strong enough bucket). The black bucket is raised (set atop the washtub) to rest just within one inch of the trashcan lid. A different bucket/washtub, which raised the black bucket up to only within 2 or 3 inches of the lid would probably also work, or might work better. But however you raise the 11-inch/active unit up nearer to the trashcan lid, you should help to reduce the open-air space below that active unit/bucket, and to guide the airflow around the perimeter and upward, so the vortex can form just below the exit hole. ~Cheers! p.s. Experimenting with the exit hole size would be a good, next project.

I just posted them in an album on facebook: http://www.facebook....&type=1 But those pictured above are all the pieces. The washtub fits inside of the trashcan, upside down, to serve as a base for elevating the black bucket--which is also then inside the trashcan. I just center them by eye, it's a pretty forgiving system. There is one picture in the album looking down through the lid onto the fuel--before lighting. [edit]The washtub (pictured in post above) is upside down in the picture (note handles on ground), which is the way it goes into the trashcan; but any bucket about that size will work, it is just a stand to elevate the active (black) bucket. This stainless bowl/liner fits inside of the black bucket (as pictured in post above): [/edit] Note nail-holes near the bottom. Three holes on other side of this stainless steel bowl/liner also. Blower (as pictured in the post above) has just been turned on. This is looking down into the stainless bowl in bottom of the black bucket. ~

I took pictures of the various pieces. They are all backyard, "found" items, except for an extra trashcan cover/lid--and a steel bowl that holds the fuel/wood chunks. I bought a 5 quart stainless drinking dish at a pet store, and punched 6 holes around the lower perimeter with a nail. It fits into the bottom of the tall black bucket, which is placed atop the shorter galvanized washtub--both inside of the trash can. This brings the sides of the (black) inner bucket up to [barely below] even with the top of the (outer) trash can. The slightly domed lid (with the hole cut in center), from a larger trash can, provides enough space above the top of the inner bucket for air to escape--and a vortex to form--as the rapidly spinning blower air rises between the walls of the inner and outer buckets and exits through the trashcan lid. The top inner bucket (black in this case) needs small holes around the base, like the steel liner has, to permit (Venturi) entrainment of smoke by the rising "input" or blower air... or to permit the vortex to push smoke out into the blower air. These small holes thus permit the vortex to "seal" the inner can--forming an air curtain across the top--without completely smothering the fire. Note the original, tight-fitting lid in background, and the new, oversized lid (with hole cut in center) on the right. It's nice to be able to place, remove, or replace the lid easily; and to have a tight-fitting lid available for smothering the whole process during trials with different configurations/inner buckets. Note hole in side, at the base, of the trashcan. Note stainless liner/bowl in bottom of black bucket. Also, Note hair dryer/blower. It has high/low speeds and no/low/high heat options, so using the "no heat" option it is just a blower. Low speed is more than enough airflow for this setup. I don't always use the plexiglass tube, but it better shows the intended airflow--around the perimeter. Hmmm. I have more pictures, but seem to have maxed out the file limit on posting. Here are the captions for those pictures--with timestamps from the pm of Aug. 26, 2012. 4:55. Note nail-holes near the bottom of stainless liner. Three holes on other side also. 6:13. Aside from the one big chunk and the kindling at center, the bowl is filled with medium sized chunks like the two or three visible around the kindling. 6:14. All set and ready to add a lit match. 6:17. Match added and lid replaced, and at 6:18. The kindling is burning. 6:19. Blower has been turned on. 6:20. The fire grows quickly. 6:21. Diffuse flames still swirl after exiting, while concentrated flames swirl in a blur near the bottom of the inner bucket, above and around the fuel. 6:21. It's hard to get a picture looking down into the vortex, without getting scorched a bit. Yowch! Notes licks of burning smoke trailing off from dark chunks of fuel at bottom. 6:22. Burning the woodsmoke vigorously. 6:23. Most of the easily generated woodsmoke has been liberated. The fire is calming down, but the fan has been running at the same speed throughout. 6:24. Fire is almost out. Note lick of smoke curling around at left, which ignited a moment later. 6:25. Only charcoal remaining. Time to turn off the blower and quench the char. 6:26. Char dumped into clay dish and misted with hose.

Good points! The blower gets jammed into a single hole formed on the side of the outer can, at the bottom, and is angled so that it blows around (parallel to) the perimeter--inside of the outer can. The blower is also parallel to the ground, or bottom of the barrel; it is not pointing upward, but is blowing air around in a circle at the bottom. As more air is blown in, the swirling air pushes up to the top so it can exit through the hole in the lid--still swirling quickly around. That is what creates the vortex that dips down into the inner can. I'll try to take a photo. It would be easier than these thousand words. ~

I've been playing with a modification of the basic TLUD, called TLOD (top-lit opposite draft) tech. If you create a "sealed" vortex above the can of burning fuel, you can reduce ash production and improve your yield of char up to four times. This is an active process, requiring a little extra power to generate an active, directed, airflow. === The can of fuel (the active can) is open on top, and it needs 5-6 small holes punched into the sides--just above the bottom. A kitchen-style can punch/bottle opener, with just the sharp tip punched through the can's side, often works well for both distance and size. Place this (active) can inside of a larger diameter can (so there are a few inches or so between the outside of the inner (active) can and the inside of the larger can. The larger (outer) can needs a lid, with a hole in the center, for heat/flame to rise out of. The hole in the center of this lid should be about 1/3 to 1/2 of the diameter of the inner can. The distance between the top of the inner can, and the lid of the outer can, should be at least a few inches--less than or similar to the airspace between the can's radii--to allow an effective vortex to form easily. Given a good vortex, the farther the lid is from the top of the inner can, the less efficiently will the smoke be sealed within and below the vortex; so this, and the size of the exit hole, can be adjusted to improve the shape of the vortex and thus efficiency of the burn. A battery operated (solar rechargeable) pump (normally used to inflate air mattresses) produces enough airflow to create a vortex for a coffee can / 5 gal. metal bucket system. At least it worked for me this past Spring. Feed the airflow into the side (near the bottom) of the outer can, pointed around the perimeter of the can (not straight toward the center, but radially around the inside of the can). The air pumped in circulates around the outside of the inner can, and thus pulls some air out through the small punched holes (Venturi effect), carrying it up to the top where it continues circling and being pushed toward the center hole in the lid... to exit. This creates a vortex (tornado) which dips into the inner can (where a small fire has been started with kindling on top of the main fuel). The vortex becomes filled with smoke (sucked out through small holes near bottom of inner can by Venturi force). The vortex ignites and continues to heat the fuel below--after the kindling is burned. The heated fuel produces smoke, which feeds the burning vortex, which continues heating the fuel. Smoke pulled down through the fuel improves the char yield, as carbon-rich smoke fractionates and some carbon redeposits onto the fuel. A burning tornado is fun to watch, but when smoke production ceases (enough to keep the vortex burning), then the fuel has been converted to charcoal. Turn off the airflow and continue cooking with perfect, rapidly produced, hot coals--or dump the char into water or mud to quench the process. Hot char will soak up, and retain, lots of water (or compost tea) to create a great onsite soil amendment (biochar). Suffocating the char will keep it dry and easy to process and transport when cooled. === Balancing the depth of the vortex (airflow speed/volume), with the little holes in the lower side of the inner can, is the hard part. The vortex need to broadly dip into the inner can (to create an "air curtain" and low oxygen conditions below the vortex), but not so far that it dips deeply into the fuel. Enlarging the small holes will shrink the vortex depth for a given airflow configuration; so start with very small holes. [A hair dryer (or blowdryer) will work with two 5 gal. buckets (one as a stand, below the other active bucket), inside of a trash can.] Did this over the past summer. [A leaf blower should work with a 50 gal. oil drum, inside of a sheet-metal "air guide" or other, larger drum with lid.] Haven't done this yet. Check out woodgasCampstove dotcom, or woodgas campstoves in general, for examples and pictures of this basic "active airflow principle" applied to improved charcoal production. Most sites have errors about the airflow, but a few sites show the correct diagrams for the airflow related to the inner (active) can. === It's a way of burning the smoke separately, instead of burning the fuel directly, to turn waste biomass--even sewage and plastics--into char. Smoke-free burning, which produces reduced carbon; what a deal! ~

...if I follow you.... I don't think it is the concept of a god alone that focuses meaning onto a broader (less selfish) level. Look at Paul Ryan, he manages to incorporate Catholicism and Ayn Rand objectivism--somehow. Although the church has contacted him about this, he still finds a way push the "individualistic" world view. The problem (and this is why education often helps) is getting people to see the importance of a "collectivistic" perspective... and incorporate that into the more primitive, or less civilized--selfish, world view. God can be an effective way of getting people onto the same page about their collective situation. Science can now offer that option, and other ideologies and -isms offer that hope, but religion was the first and easiest to develop and fulfill that necessary function for society. ~ "I grew up on Ayn Rand," Ryan said at a Washington, D.C., gathering seven years ago honoring Rand. "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand." "Paul can still quote every verse out of Ayn Rand," his brother Tobin said in a 2009 interview. verse? That might explain how he integrates his worldviews. === "What I have been trying to do is indict the entire vision of progressivism, because I see progressivism as the source, the intellectual source for the big government problems that are plaguing us today," said Ryan, noting. "I grew up hearing about this stuff. This stuff came from these German intellectuals to Madison, (the) University of Wisconsin ... It never sat right with me." You're right! It's those damn Germans!

...but they still use heat to help break up the biomass, don't they? I'm not wedded to using only heat to reform biomass into fuel, but I guess I consider anything done along those lines as modifications and improvements to the basic pyrolytic process. I'm all for finding better ways to modify pyrolysis, or any method that converts biomass into reduced carbon/fuels. Do you know of any other methods? I've heard the military is looking for ways to be more green and self-sufficient in the field. At $400.00 per gallon, I'd think someone could figure a way to reform biomass into fuel for some fraction of that. Simply turning the biomass into charcoal, the most inefficient conversion, might make sense at those prices. I know economics drives decisions, so we need to wait until the carbon reserviors, and the redox balances of carbon globally, are valued more. But the military need often drives technological developments and advances. Whatever the particulars are in a given situation, pyrolysis offers the simplest way overall to restore the global redox balance of carbon--using ambient oxidized carbon to make more reduced carbon--slowing the conversion of fossil reduced carbon into ambient oxidized carbon. ~Or words to that effect The fact that we can get heat and power, and even fuel, by using pyrolysis is just an added benefit--or perhaps incentive--from a Gaian perspective. ~

Thanks! And that is a great joke (I will use it in future); certainly the best laugh in my day today. All you point out is true, and I did make it sound as if standard petrochemical refining equipment would work on biotars/oil/acids --the biomess-- which they can't, directly. I would imagine even the variability in natural oils leads refineries to develop new processes and equipment, but a pyrolytic biomess is outside of the range of that variability. But I'd also imagine that a lot could be learned from petro refining and applied to bio refining. Fortunately chemistry is still chemistry (just the same) for these petro and bio molecules. Learning to better refine fuels from more reactive oils/tars would require a bit more R&D, but is that a bad thing? Don't we need a new industry in this global economy? The payoffs seem fairly large and easy, if one can control the "mess" factor, which is where chemical engineering comes in. As you say, it is a problem of 'which technology is best.' Or at least can be made to work well enough? What technologies and consequences are you comparing with pyrolysis? And you're right. I wouldn't advocate for backyard pyrolytic distillation, especially any "still" in a densly populated area; but where people already cook with open fires (about 1 billion cook this way), a pyrolytic gasifier stove would expose them to much less carbon monoxide, and smoke/soot in general, compared with their current methods. Until they get electric or gas stoves, this would be an improvement. Some of the new gasifier stoves even generate enough extra electricity to power an LED and charge a phone--both needed items where they still cook on open fires. And yes, when it comes to doing something that might explode, I'd advocate for doing that in an industrialized sector with good safetly and environmental regulations. But they would need trainloads of biomass for such an endeavor... which could fractionally replace trainloads of coal, I'd expect. No doubt there are many hurdles to overcome and details to research and develop, but I think the general idea makes sense from a lot of angles: Many problems currently linked to our chemical oxidation of "fossil" carbon could be improved by including an economy based in part on a judicious chemical reduction of "ambient" carbon. Pyrolysis provides that opportunity, and it doesn't seem as if it would take much research or any sort of a "breakthrough" to pursue this avenue. I agree that pyrolysis creates a biomess problem, but that problem seems puny compared to the problems we are trying to solve with advanced, resource-intensive, technology--often still waiting for some needed breakthroughs. I'm hoping the old primitive pyrolysis technology (which was fairly abandonded when cheap oil came along) will find new, cleaner and more efficient ways to contribute as the future develops. ~

Fuel cells are a chemical way of making electricity. http://en.wikipedia....fuel_cell_types The max seems to be around 60%, which is also about what a high-tech turbine achieves. People are always working to get another fraction of a percent, and making good money to do so. I think the limitations are not centered on the actual chemistry, but rather on the practicalities surrounding economics, toxicities, and other resource management considerations. But the overall idea is worth pursuing, as evidenced by searching "synthetic leaf" online. Artificial Photosynthesis Part of the photosynthesis process operates essentially as a fuel cell, creating a proton gradient. Oxidative phosphorylation (respiration) similarly creates a proton gradient, but does not directly rely on sunlight, so it wouldn't be a direct form of biochemical solar power. Nanoscale materials, and metastructures composed of nanomaterials, hold a promise for converting photons directly into electricity... I would think. Search: electricity from metastructures in nanomaterials (About 1,650,000 results) ~

I thought you probably meant getting electricity out of a chlorophyll-type of system, and when you see the process on paper it looks easy enough to replicate and modify for our purposes; but I'm sure it's been tried. I think most of the mysteries in photosynthesis have been uncovered. Evolution has figured out a good way of converting sunlight (radiant energy) into biochemical energy... and it is self-repairing and self-renewable. I'm sure there is a way to construct some organometallic polymeric nanomaterial that would convert sunlight into electricity (which is essentially what solar cells already are), but ATP would probably only work in a self-maintaining biological system. Just generating electricity is easy with photoelectric materials I think, but the hard part is maintaining a system that collects and uses the electricity in an economic manner. Even if we could figure something out, I think it would be too complicated and expensive to build, perfect, perpetuate, integrate, and maintain. All of that stuff has already been done by nature. We don't need to copy it, and then adapt the copy to our needs; but simply use what is already in front of us, converted differently. Biomass will naturally (given proper conditions) turn into fossil fuels. With chemical engineering we can speed up that process. The leaf is your "biochemical solar power" already, and it would be easier to convert that biochemical solar power into electricity than it would be to "re-invent the wheel" with some different, uniquely patentable, biochemical solar power, it seems to me. ~

Yes, plants already convert sunlight into energy (not electricity). Bacteria, as well as bacterial ecosystems, have been engineered to (and some naturally) produce an electron or proton gradient (electricity). But plants already have the volume, in biomass, to supply much of the energy we need on a renewable basis each year. The problem is converting the plant energy (carbohydrates/oils/aromatics) into useable fuel. Lignin-digesting enzymes would be one big step toward that conversion. Systems to convert cellulose into ethanol are be another big step. There is, however, another way to use plant energy. Currently we focus on growing specialty crops with a high yield of sugar or oil, so that with minimal effort we can convert the refined crop into useable fuel/electricity. Only the energy-rich, refined fraction of the original crop is used to then conveniently and "economically" produce the fuel/electricity. This is a waste of land, energy-rich fertilizers, and agricultural power. Rather than work hard to grow special biofuel crops (or electricity-producing crops), we could easily convert any/all waste biomass into a crude biotar type of product. We already have the technology to refine crude oils and tars into high-grade fuels. Pyrolytic conversion of biomass into biotar can be an exothermic process (so extra energy can be captured), or it can be run more endothermically (via solar or other heating) to increase the yield of biotar. Either way, there is enough waste biomass out there to easily produce gigatonnes of biosubstrate for further refining. Our current limited refining capacity is the huge, limiting step in this scenario; but the technology has already been "refined," so it's just a matter of using it extensively. Chemical engineering of waste biomass seems to be much easier, safer, and more economical and natural than the genetic/agricultural engineering required to intensively grow pre-refined fuels--that still need further processing, storage, and transport. This also prevents the competition for good soil between food crops and fuel crops; food crops already generate the waste biomass needed for pyrolytic conversion, so no specialty fuel crops are needed. === Pyrolysis technology isn't so esoteric that it can't be used widely in backyards across the globe, helping rural and agricultural communities in third-world regions as well as providing opportunities on an industrial scale for careers and new industries in more developed and overdeveloped regions. Deserts (combined with wastes and waste water) can also be used to extensively grow cheap biomass, which then helps combat desertification... or furthers de-desertification efforts. As an added benefit, using all that waste biomass would shunt gigatonnes of carbon dioxide out of the natural decay cycle. Some of that could then be used to offset our current carbon emissions, or used to draw down atmospheric carbon levels as we are able to cut future carbon emissions. ~

How well do you know your topic? Is it Sewell or Sowell? === But I could offer an answer here: Sure! In about a hundred years, if we may use your lofty standard, ...we'll "leave the Bush bashing behind." ~

I'm not sure tweaking the levers of our unsustainable economy, in the hope of fixing it, won't only be prolonging the inevitable. Someone will eventually point out that the emperor is wearing no clothes. So I'd try reorganizing the executive departments to shift the overall momentum. I've long focused on the 4 E's --Economy, Energy, Education, & Environment-- and usually add Health/healthcare into the mix. However a more holistic, if not more convenient, perspective starts with Health as the main theme and then incorporates the 4 E's by focusing onto three dimensions. 1. Personal Health 2. Socio-economic Health 3. Planetary Health Seems to me that if we focused on the science and responsibility of the personal and planetary, and if we worked to establish and realize the value of personal and planetary health, then our socio-economic health would improve and remain more durable and resilient. So First ...reform education to improve health trajectories: Education could be focused on improving health, instead of improving wealth. With that "health" goal in mind, I'd make education (about health sciences, especially diet and nutrition) central to enrollment in universal health care (based on minimum needs for public health), and link extra benefits proportionally to the effort one makes to take care of themselves and/or the responsibility they take by contributing to society's future health. This would greatly reduce future healthcare costs, hopefully preventing the looming--which will double total Medicare spending--diabetes epidemic. Second ...reform tax structure/system to improve socio-economic trajectories: Education about planetary health, the physical sciences, would be the basis for understanding the carbon cycle and the need to establish a value for carbon (yes, a carbon tax on the oxidation of fossil carbon--but along with a carbon credit for building the carbon richness of soil via atmospheric CO2 reduction). Accounting for the "hidden" costs of our energy subsidized, consumption- and entertainment-based economy should help shift socio-economic patterns into a more sustainable production- and health-based economy. The carbon cycle, which is a basis for understanding the ecosystem services that provide our food, needs to also be the basis for understanding and improving the management of our valued resources (economy). This would develop technologies and industries that should be in high demand for export as climate change intensifies. Third ...reform Social Security to improve society's (and civilization's) trajectories: Education about history, and the social sciences and humanities in general, will help improve social and economic health. I'd reform social security to cover a basic minimum (needed for public health and security), and then link extra benefits proportionally to the efforts and contributions one makes while doing work and/or in a career furthering the previous two goals--such as helping restore ecosystem services and/or growing more, healthier and eco-friendly foods--building a healthy population and planet and civilization. This should build an enduring base of non-outsourceable jobs, careers, and industries that would be locally regulated, rewarded, and reinforced. === Nothing has to be mandatory, but if you want something other than your own self-funded healthcare and retirement plans, then you need to take responsibility and participate in ensuring a strong future for society. We should still be free to pursue the icing, but only after helping to make a good cake. === Oh, and abolish the Dept. of Homeland Security, the largest increase in government growth and spending since WWII, and the largest excuse for taxing, control, and the inevitable creation of a 1984-style police state ever. The drones are coming! Governments used to inspire us with talk about the lofty pursuit of dreams, but now they work to justify everything as the necessary protection from nightmares. We should refocus on healthy dreams. ~

Today I heard Dr. Muller interviewed: http://www.democracy...hard#transcript On Aug. 2, 2012, Muller explained: Gee, what a novel idea. I musta' been mistaken thinkin' that had already been done. So what happened, Dr. Muller? Thanks for sharing your what you now feel, but the scientific consensus already existed. Please feel free to share what you "now feel" about living in a world where "we do need to take action" and do nothing about it..... ...but I'm being snarky; what else does Dr. Muller say? ...my emphases, and I would add.... That is also a warmer climate than modern terrestrial animal, crop, and aquatic species "have ever experienced" --or evolved to compete within-- over the past 5 million years. Or put another way.... Today's disappearing diversity evolved from life that has not had to contend with such "warmth" for over 20 million years--before today's temperate zones developed. Loss of these temperate zones will favor a shift to, and a predominance by, tropical (incl. disease-causing) species and ecosystems. The National Academy of Sciences recently published "Understanding Earth's Deep Past," where they point out that... "by the end of this century atmospheric carbon dioxide is projected to increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years." http://dels.nas.edu/...Deep-Past/13111 Millions of years of adaptation... pushed to be undone within a century or so. More ancient species, such as algae & jellyfish, will benefit; ecosystems will lose balance and revert! === "...the danger is that ... this will continue...." ~Richard Muller

Good question! This hones in on the crux of the biscuit... so to speak. The "half-life" of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't some chemical property of CO2, but rather it is a consequent (or secondary) property of the biogeochemosphere. Soil (a highly evolved creature that only recently came to predominate the biosphere and more strongly affect climate) is the 3rd largest pool of carbon on the planet. Trillions of tons of carbon are sequestered in soils. Yearly, the planet's soils and plants respire over a 100 gigatons of CO2. ...And we wonder why we can't account for 2 gigatons of emissions that seem to get sequestered each year! [fyi: we emit about 8 GtC, and about half is sequestered--but only about 2 GtC of that is accounted for] === A few decades ago I heard CO2 lasted for a few decades or up to a century, but these days I hear numbers for the minimum "half life" for CO2 as at least 120 years and up to several centuries. Warming and higher CO2 levels may stimulate more plant growth on average to suck down more CO2, but those factors also stimulate soil respiration to release more CO2. Warming Arctic soils release more carbon, but more rain could help other soils sequester more carbon. Drought or a flood-n-drought cycle (which even may average out to "more rain") causes the release of carbon from soils. Deforestation is associated with a large release of carbon. Subsequent erosion can release even more carbon; whereas if the denuded landscape reverts to grassland, it can hold more carbon than the former forest! Algal blooms in the Arctic, or along coastal population centers, may offset the carbon lost due to soils eroding into those waters. Our excessive Nitrogen (fertilizer) inputs, which exceed by four times (4x) the carrying capacity of the biosphere to metabolize them, are sequestering a lot of carbon as it creates the dead zones throughout our fisheries. Those areas will become future oil shales for the planet! === There's lots of ways CO2 gets bio-sequestered and bio-released. It seems to me that the potential exists to manage soils so that natural soil-based respiration is shifted by 1-2% in favor of sequestering more carbon. I've read it takes 500 years to grow an inch of topsoil; but I bet if we worked on that intentionally, we could get it down to just a few decades... to grow an inch of topsoil. That, if done widely enough, would offset our carbon emissions. Solar-powered, reductive pyrolysis allows for the production of bio-oils for fuel (along with the biosequestration of stable soil-enriching carbon to help grow more soil) from waste biomass. There are ways forward into a well-managed, sustainable future. We can change the "half life" of CO2 by how we manage the ecosystem, if we would choose to do so intentionally instead of unintentionally as we have been doing for centuries now.

At least you note how your "Title" is biased upon a premature assessment of information. === IEEE has a long and respected reputation. http://spectrum.ieee...the-climate-fix Hey, at least Pielke is advocating for a price on carbon! It's nice that he seems to agree with the (good) science. === So I came across this IEEE book review [above] after seeing an advertisement for his book on his blogsite: http://rogerpielkejr...nd-climate.html where he is posting re: ...The new paper -- titled "A Trend Analysis of Normalized Insured Damage from Natural Disasters" ...based on an extensive dataset from an insurance company, Munich Re. Pielke emphasizes, from the conclusion of the report: HA! What a surprise! "...based on the very limited time-series data we have for most countries..." they don't find a long-term or global signal. Why would one be expected? However.... "The accumulation of wealth in disaster-prone areas is and will always remain...." Gee, go figure.... === Pielke notes that his main interest in this report about "insurance losses," which he gives "double emphasis," is that: "The authors acknowledge support from the Munich Re Programme "Evaluating the Economics of Climate Risks & Opportunities in the Insurance Sector" He seems to see this as a conflict of interest, but who else is going to help fund a study on "insurance losses?" It was their extensive dataset after all.... Why would Pielke find this so suspicious? Oh well; whatever.... === After reading how the report notes "that both regional trends might be associated with simple variability or how they adjust for insurance penetration," (my emphasis), I can see why they only found global warming happening in the U.S. and West Germany. I think that also might explain why their "global average" didn't show much long-term change. But John, are you trying to put this up as evidence that globally extreme weather isn't happening more often, more extensively, and more aggressively; or will you really edit the title? === Pielke may think this report is suspect or needs reinterpretation, and you can echo that if you want to; but Pielke posted the report itself, which uses phrases highlighting "...the strong probability that there is a connection between the large number of weather extremes and climate change," and "...the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change."

John, there you go again; setting up some scenario of how measurements should be interpreted and pointing to your consequent results as a way to show that the accepted science must be wrong... if one will buy your premise. But first.... === Also, as I said, it's fine to quote me; but please don't use the quotes out of context. That snippet above, about my "belief," was from a different paragraph; so to be clear, I said: "In general, I find it hard to believe the science is really as bad as you suggest." My general faith in science (as being more valid than you suggest science is) has nothing to do with what we were "disagreeing" on--a specific point, about how you incorrectly (istm) analyze and compare solar forcings. Your method ("the maths or the logic") isn't what I find "hard to believe," as your post intimated; I was talking there about science in general. "Specifically" your method ("the maths or the logic") is invalid because it ignores the smoothed averages, and is thus prone to gross misinterpretation based on short-term (weather) effects and inadvertent cherry-picking (or not using the more robust data)... and probably other reasons; but I'm no expert in statistical analysis, so if you ask maybe an expert will better explain the flaws in your method. === But about buying your premises.... You also close with another contrived (strawman) scenario and suggest, "Something here does not add up." You seem to be the only one who sees this. Does that give you a clue about where the difficulty may lie? Again, I'd like to ask: "Can you think of good reasons why the authors of those papers used a different way to analyze their data?" I won't bold it this time, but maybe I should rephrase it to ask if you can you think of good reasons why you used a different way to analyze their data? Or you could ask why the author's method is considered a more valid way to analyze their data; I'm sure a statistician, or any actively working scientist on this forum, could explain it clearly and simply. === But most importantly, you clearly say I think it is clear you don't understand something (in addition to my "objection"). You make this specifically clear with the comments about "zero to 80 spots over 100 years" and how you compare that with a 5 year "sunspot" forcing. Please, does anyone else see why "Both of these statements cannot be true." Anyone who can see that would overturn a basic scientific method (istm), and should get some positive rep--to say the least--if they could justify it! ~

You're right, "this makes no sense," but I don't know enough to explain all that is wrong with the scenario in your post. I do know you are wrong about saying how I'm "arguing that a short drop... gives a greater reduction in TSI than a prolonged drop." That is your post (#274)--filled with your assumptions and "if" phrases--supposedly analyzing the solar cycles, which then creates your "logical question;" so don't claim they are my words or logic. If you'd like to quote from my posts, and ask questions or make points about those, feel free. === But to the post (#273), which I can make sense of.... In general, I find it hard to believe the science is really as bad as you suggest. I know the estimates of solar activity, over centuries and millennia, are some of the least robust in climate science, and one of the bigger uncertainties in climate science; but they are not just making this stuff up, or doing bad science, to fit some agenda. If you want to pick a particular point, which you see as problematic, we could try to drill down to a better understanding; but to paint a whole discipline as invalid seems to be a stretch. === And specifically: Your numbers come from either subtracting measurements from particular solar cycles that are centuries apart, or from within the same cycle (post #274) and then extrapolating that number out for some hundred years. Can you think of good reasons why the authors of those papers used a different way to analyze their data? From that graph of solar irradiance forcing: It is not that the graph doesn't match the data (as you claim: "it misrepresents"), but that the graph correctly displays the "smoothed" data. How could you evaluate all those papers, and yet not see that? But y'know, even if the sun suddenly becomes a lot more variable, its effects would still be outweighed by CO2 over the long term (unless you have some new "faint sun" ideas). === And what was that faint sun comment about anyway.... Whatever it was, I doubt "most people" even know how 3 billion years ago that the sun seems to have been some 30% dimmer. But even if they do, what does that have to do with climate over the past (or next) few centuries or millennia or million years? I didn't bring that up, so why would your comment, "Well you have a problem with it for a start," make any sense? But you're wrong; I don't now, nor never had a problem with it, since it never seemed to be significant. Once you learned about it, and wondered about its significance, why wouldn't you have a problem with it? You're talking about change on the order of 0.1 Watt for every million years (with the faint sun idea). Are you suggesting how "the Sun could vary by 3 W/m-2 between a Grand Minima and a Grand Maxima" is explained by the faint sun hypothesis? === And re: post #276: But regardless of your opinion on the quality of the science being done to characterize solar effects, you are jumping the gun by graphing that downward trend. As the denialists admonished the alarmists to do back in the 80's & 90's, you need to wait a few more years before claiming any "new" trends. However, this is a good opportunity to check the models with more recent observations: January 2012 - NASA [RE: solar forcing 2005-2010] ...my emphases And there are those extra (not predicted or modeled in 2007) aerosols from China over that same period. But those are temporary, transient forcings. What happens when the cycle moves to solar maximum? CO2 will still be there, but maybe China will increase aerosol production (...guess we won't need to do geoengineering with those giant sulfate-aerosol projectors anymore, eh?) or maybe a volcano will erupt during the next solar max to help keep the forcings lower. But this does seem to show that the models are still tracking well, once new or changing (relative to the original predictions) forcers are accounted for. === Even if the extra warming from CO2 is offset for a few year by some combination of other forcings, or even of some cooling is forced, over the long term the planet cannot escape the continuous and relentless extra forcing, from pole to pole, by CO2. As well as acidifying the oceans, it will always offset cooling forcers or it will accentuate warming forcers, which over time creates a ratchet effect of increasing heat retention. ~istm

...Are you talking about the "faint sun" from billions of years ago, and suggesting that should compare with variation over some recent centuries?!? [Maybe that is just "most people" whom you know.]=== ...[re: the 0.5 Watt/m^2 claim....] ...John, is that "total forcing" or forcing only from "solar insolation" between then and now? [see below also*] ...Can you share (or at least cite) all those papers?=== ...[re: the IPCC graph on solar forcing...] ...so are you saying the graph doesn't portray "what the values really were?" That is an extraordinary claim! But.... *John, you're right! We had this conversation before. ...from: http://www.sciencefo...post__p__613805 The graph (as I recalled) is a compilation of many studies, not data from one author as you have suggested twice now. I'm just going by the graph, but am I not reading it right--about it being a meta analysis or at least a compilation of many other studies? full graph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/p...igure-6-13.html Also, speaking of not reading the graph correctly: Do you agree that--whether it is wrong or not--this graph shows about a half Watt of change between the MWP & LIA (or 1150 v. 1450)? In that post from June, 2011 (and the posts above), I keep saying "between the LIA & MWP," whereas you keep saying "between the Maunder Minimum & Today;" but either way the graph backs up my numbers--if I'm reading it right--of about a half Watt change in average forcing from drifting solar activity (minimum difference) ...though (to be fair, it is) slightly over 1.0 Watt/m^2 if you look at the maximum difference (GRT 2005 -or- AJS 2006). However, the "average" [black line] of the various studies is still at about a half Watt difference; isn't it? === Back then, I recall you picked numbers from two solar cycles that were centuries apart and subtracted them to get those answers of from 3 to 10 Watts/m^2.... ...but I still don't think that is a valid way to compare solar activity between any different periods or between then and now. Do you? ~