Essay

Global economic activity might be related to CO2 output. I tried to find some charts to reflect that, but "personal disposable income" seemed to match best: But seriously, it looks as if global "recessions" are related to CO2 emissions; not too surprisingly.... ~ )

What you say makes perfect sense, if you envision modern "organic" agriculture as being done the way farming was done 100-200 years ago. There should be an alternative way of doing modern, distributed (high employment) and coordinated (online), low-labor, clean-n-easy, high-tech "organic" agriculture. Such a system would use robots for much of the labor, and direct sensing/assay of soil/plant genetics and health; to be coordinated with remote sensing data and evaluated to guide management decisions, and executed over a video game-like system. It could be done as a full-time career, or simply as a supplement to other work/income; or even as a "filler" between traditional jobs. It's not as if we have too many jobs and not enough people to fill them. Something such as this could act as a buffer for unemployment or the transitions encountered while seeking other high-tech or traditional employment. === But regardless of whether that fantasy comes anywhere close to some future reality... We need to DOUBLE food production over the next 50 years (to accommodate the projected "stabilizing and more affluent" population increase, which will be eating higher up on the food chain)... while also greatly reducing environmental damage (which current "modern" agriculture is significantly exacerbating). === An article in the Jan. 2012, Scientific American develops this strategy: http://www.scientifi...ood-less-energy How to Make the Food System More Energy Efficient Changes in agriculture, policy and personal behaviors can reduce the energy a nation uses to feed itself and the greenhouse gases it emits ...and the Nov. 2011 issue had this seminal article: http://www.scientifi...-feed-the-world Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet? A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage ...The Five Food Security Steps! This involves a bit-o-reorienting of our economic system and what we value, but don't we need to do that anyway? And from a 2007 book: "The Rhizosphere" [meaning the extended root zone in land use]. Over a third of GHG emissions come from the Agricultural Sector. We can fix that; and produce more food--if we shift our value on intensity--and employ more people too. ...my emphases re: nascent global civilization & new industries and careers. ...since the resources that jump-started civilization are now used up, and so we can't restart this civilization ever again.... I'm hoping we can learn from history, and not repeat the typical rise-n-fall pattern of local and regional civilizations, now that we are operating at a global level. This focus on food and health (personal, socioeconomic, & ecosphere) seems to be a viable way forward, istm. "Why should we not take every opportunity to find synergies... that maximize co-benefits." ~

...What?!? The grimace may rather be associated with "vulnerability," which in certain (primeval?) circumstances requires a fight/flight response, but in other (social?) circumstances can be an invitation to cooperate. ~

I saw Paul Zak a few years back, http://oxytocincentr...m/tag/paul-zak/ [The Neurobiology of Trust] ...talking about oxytocin. IIRC, he said about 1% of the population have chronically high levels of oxytocin AND their brains are basically immune to its usual effect of trust and empathy. He called these people, "the bastards," in the talk I saw on the Research Channel (not a TED talk... of which there are many links online). Google: Paul Zak oxytocin TED. Interesting that the bastards comprise about 1% of the population. I wonder if it is THE One Percent? But seriously, I'd bet they are fairly evenly distributed. ~

...I'm just going with what the science says. If you can show that the science is as illogical as you suggest, then you deserve the Nobel, istm. === JohnB, I expect it may be the forcers, rather than the overall climate, to which my statements above apply, in a more-or-less technically correct manner; but I don't want to get off-topic talking about how science uses jargon, and defines words to mean specific things depending upon the discipline, or co-opts common words to mean new things... such as (respectively) REDOX, and CELL (biology or math systems), or REDUCE (common or chemical). And with new disciplines it is even worse! The very fact that glossaries are common should be a clue too: ...my emphases=== As you indicated, "nuance" is to be appreciated. This argument for a black-n-white rejection of climate science due to the whole linear/non-linear "chaotic" or "complex" or "simple" conflict in descriptions (from your perspective) seems to miss some of the nuance that has developed in the climate sciences... as well as other fields like biology and systems science. I'm not arguing to "redefine" things, but to use definitions as appropriate--hoping to provide deeper insight. Nor am I arguing to rewrite the dictionary, or to exclude words such as "chaotic" which have an appropriate place and usage. With only a little research, we can determine these nuances... and gain deeper insights. === But I was glad you mentioned how linear analysis can be useful in science. That usefulness also applies to the science in Chaos Theory, and in Non-Linear and Adaptive Systems. Embrace the Chaos! (or at least the Theory) ~

A project to convert food or crop/yard wastes (through reductive pyrolysis) into a soil-building, water-retaining, and very long-lasting, agricultural amendment --that enhances productivity in crops and other plants-- would cover many of those project criteria. Google: pyrolysis soil amendment "decades to centuries" Experiments to examine yield increases (or decreases) in different soils, or simple seed-germination studies could each provide a wide variety of experimental concepts/setups. Experiments which vary either the feedstock or the production conditions (of the soil amendment) would be another set of dimensions upon which to experiment, or also co-vary with soil/yield or germination response studies. ~

...Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate Future (2011) "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." --p.5 http://www.nap.edu/o...id=13111&page=9 You might also search "oceanic anoxic event" to see where such a course leads.... === Athena! But there is not enough time or money or space to build another Ark. The Ark we are currently shepherding through the heavens is just a little leaky. We can fix this, and sail forth happily ...or not...! Stewarding our Dominion, managing the REDOX balance and the pH balance of this biogeochemosphere, is our purpose; the natural law of Gaia and evolution--to maintain homeostasis, balance, and sustainable prosperity and providence. Time for a Global Perspective! ~

I'm glad you explained that you are not speaking of an anthropomorphized source of extraordinary altruism. It seems there may even be room for a "natural" source, contingent upon how natural is defined, I suppose.... === MTM: There is a pattern you speak of, which served evolution well as we filled our niche. I wonder if you think that pattern will continue to serve us similarly, now that our niche is filled and resource shifts are changing the baseline biodiversity of our niche. === To immortal: I'm not sure about --or if it matters now-- how evolution has shaped us psychologically; but however we got here, I don't see why "evolutionary psychology" can't motivate all the humane qualities of "godliness" that you so nicely listed above. With just a little education.... From a scientific perspective, looking at the long evolutionary path to get here --and all the biochemical luck and skill and struggle and strain, and the endurance and dreams of our ancestors-- motivates me to make a connection of some sort which validates that long effort. The grandeur of the 3 Big Bangs (Existence, Life, Self-Awareness) and how those now bring us to this peak of knowledge and humanity --which allows us to see from the beginning to the end of time, as well as the infinitely small and large-- is enough to motivate me to be more humane... so that future generations may also enjoy this heaven on earth --our domain-- His biogeochemosphere. ...or however you might define the biogeochemosphere. === I wrote the above notes several nights ago (re: thru post #87), and having read through the subsequent postings it still seemed valid. I'd like to add.... With religions (trying to maintain cohesiveness/continuity), sometimes weird rules arise, which conflict with "common-sense" humane relationships or natural laws. Similarly, governments (trying to maintain cohesiveness/continuity) also develop unique laws to address special circumstances, and so weird rules evolve--which can easily conflict with "common-sense" humane relationships or natural laws. Life is a balancing act; and maybe it is time to act. It's has only been a few hundred years since governments began replacing the cohesiveness and continuity functions of religions; maybe there is still room for improvement and action to seek better balance. === immortal... Aren't you just defining a sort of "super" alturism, which logically would emerge as a result of belonging to some "super-organism" such as a society? Look at the longer term (or psychologically contrived) ideological motivations to explain such seeming disconnects with reciprocity. ...or words to that effect.... === BOT, re: iNow & related comments on Cicero.... I'd suggest that many of history's problems were the result of an incomplete understanding of those "natural laws." Social systems organized around an incomplete understanding of the "natural laws" had better learn to adapt adeptly, or expect to eventually confront a crisis. === As Arete mentioned (iirc): What does it matter from whence the source of humane, "Real," altruistic or good (natural laws) behviour emerges? ...& Athena, I liked your comment about how--regarding the "natural laws" of Cicero--we could modify our understanding and application when "new information comes along." Just in the past decade, new information --on the level of a paradigm shift regarding life cycle functioning and our critical place in that cycle-- has been discovered and is becoming available. This seems like the sort of opportunity to re-examine how "good" is derived from and defined by those natural laws, since this new information relates to many socio-economic and resource problems/goals currently on humanity's "good/bad" radar. Athena's nicely quotable, "...it does not become a moral, until we define it." ...got me thinking about that old phrase, "for the good of society." As ~

How much CO2 would be produced, by the work needed to compress the gas, that would go into the tires?

Sorta like...? God is just another word for how we understand and make sense of our being. ~

...c'mon JB, seriously? Did you even read up on chaos theory? ...a simple wiki browse? Did you even google: chaotic attractor? ...and hopefully click on images? === ...or perhaps you did, and this is why we're steering away from that. === HEY! I'm glad to see we've addressed the OP! Progress! ...if it were that complex, we wouldn't be able to predict how, 30 years from now, it will be warmer in summer than in winter. But in truth the language we use is the source of the problem here. We use terms like "simple" and "complex," assuming everyone comes away with the same understanding. But obviously the same sentence can logically lead to opposite conclusions, depending on how the terminology is defined. Learning how science uses these terms will help you discern the various interpretations, as well as evaluate the logic and continuity that such sentences convey. ...here is an example of how this would become more clear and understandable, if you'd learn the terminology and more precise ways that science applies these terms to various disciplines, paradigms, or theories. ...well this sort of takes us back to the OP. Over short, 30-year segments, linear behaviour can be approximated; and very useful information and predictions can be gathered. WHAT?!? By what logic...? ...for a personal view, it is a good working hypothesis. But I'm very thankful that climate science has progressed far beyond that level. ~

...I did mention lobbying ...and what about "lack of inaction" & "poor action" & counterproductive action...." Yes, that is a big point. Government "let this happen" so to speak. But it is not a big conspiracy by the government to take our money. This happens through ignorance, corruption, greed, and powerplays. It co-evolves with the private sector, as those things always do. The government is us! We have reached the limits of complexity, and this is the result! ...so to speak.... Also, if you want to pick a point (and start looking at resetting the dials on our constantly evolving economic model), I might start with the Keating Five... back in 1989. [Wiki says: "The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis. Remember the S & L Crisis!?! ...and John McCain's role as one of the Five? [...shows how old I am....] "Fixing" that crisis led to regulations... leading to the banking scandal of the 90's, which then led to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which set the stage for the abuses of the 2000's. Why pick on 2001, (when we were desperate to stimulate our economy "temporarily" and everyone agreed--[recall the DotCom Bubble? & 9-11-2001?]) or are you of an age where that is about the most recent history of which you are aware? ...yea, about "original intent," you should bone up on Adam Smith and economic theory, and replace some of that economic ideology that drives your postings, imho.=== here are some links and commentary on the topic: http://mises.org/jou.../thornton12.pdf http://www.goodreads...4424.Adam_Smith "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." ― Adam Smith http://www.jstor.org/pss/40325376 "Despite his legacy as a powerful advocate of free-market capitalism, Adam Smith's writings can support an active role for government in affecting the distribution of income in society." http://www.econlib.o...bios/Smith.html "It may surprise those who would discount Smith as an advocate of ruthless individualism that his first major work concentrates on ethics and charity." "Adam Smith has sometimes been caricatured as someone who saw no role for government in economic life. In fact, he believed that government had an important role to play. Like most modern believers in free markets, Smith believed that the government should enforce contracts and grant patents and copyrights to encourage inventions and new ideas. He also thought that the government should provide public works, such as roads and bridges, that, he assumed, would not be worthwhile for individuals to provide. Interestingly, though, he wanted the users of such public works to pay in proportion to their use" http://economistsvie...government.html List of appropriate Govt. activities, per Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. "regulations of paper money in banking " -p.437 "rights of farmers to send farm produce to the best market (except 'only in the most urgent necessity') -p.539 OMG! An Exception! It's not totally Free! "Premiums and other encouragements to advance the linen and woollen industries" Subsidies! http://www.futurecas...20Nations%20(II).htm "The primary objective is to maximize the prosperity of the economy for the welfare of the people and the financial capabilities of the state." -A. Smith Hey, what about making personal profit!?! I tried to compose a paragraph about this, but gave up. Here are some links. Like the Bible, it is easy to find "counter" quotes and arguments from Adam Smith's writings, but I just wanted to indicate that the "original intent" saw many sides to the issue of a "free" market. ~ p.s. Don't get me wrong. I am in favor of capitalism and "free enterprise," but just not as the sole guiding principle of my political philosophy. That would be like a diet of pure sugar; not sustainable. Pure "free enterprise" is more like survival of the fittest; and while I admire Darwin, I would like to think that there are some benefits to living in a society--over and above the "natural state" of a dog-eat-dog world. Hence we have governments to moderate the excesses. Adam Smith was a part of the Scottish Enlightenment... which you should also search and try to fit into your understanding of the evolution of economic models, imho....

Yes, I thought about putting a parenthetical in (about needing to account for "surrounding interactions") also, but I wanted to keep close to the "mirror image" / lock-n-key aspect. You're right, those terms were only meant to be evocative of what is theoretically possible, not practical now (or ever possibly). Posting rapidly, I didn't think to look up the term for the pictures I've seen; but I searched "electronic contour map of binding site" and found this (which I entitled QuantumContours). http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=s0100-40422007000500016&script=sci_arttext This is the type of thing I was trying to indicate. Sorry if that didn't come across in my hasty metaphorical language. I thought the OP would "get" that --as well as (or perhaps better than) a well researched, technologically accurate, list of points and citations. Thanks for getting me to look up that picture though. ~

There is no "amino acid sequence" for Tramadol. I don't know anything about the drug, but I'd bet it is not a protein. The receptor is a protein (so it has an aa sequence). Thinking of drug receptor interactions as a lock-n-key is helpful, but trying to apply that "mirror image" concept won't work, if it is simply based on using aa sequences to reverse engineer something to fit the receptor... if that is what you were thinking about. ...or words to that effect. Does that help, or am I misunderstanding? ~ P.S. Theoretically, from the aa sequence, you could predict and map the quantum sensitivities of the receptor/binding site. From that you could "reverse engineer" a mirror image type of drug to manipulate the receptor; but you don't use amino acids to do that sort of "quantum mapping" or design. ~

Sorry about that. Reading the comment about molecules with two redox sites ("bi-metallic complex"?) as being rare, reminded me how surprised I was to learn about the multiple redox sites-- coordinating Fe and Mn, Cu, etc. --in humic molecules. These aren't easily studied in the lab, so they may be irrelevant; but that diversity in molecules -and even parts of molecules- does exist. In trying to "second" the remark about fractional redox charge, I got way off topic. I also suspect a connection between this phenomenon and smell (olfaction), and since Captain Panic & John Cuthber had talked about the smell of rust last year... I thought the reference might stimulate some more exchanges. Sorry to be so oblique (...thought you guys could read minds, eh?); I'll try to stay more "on topic" in the future. Thanks for your work here. ~

...And ...At what point will the "green" revolution be accounted for, in those figures? ...but that dwarfs any changes from climate. How can it not be accounted for? ...good that you have that figured out. I can cite this? But your phrase "A complex, chaotic, non linear system" doesn't describe climate! It is no wonder that you have the perspective that you do. If I thought climate behaved in that way, I would agree with most of your points about uncertainties ...and about it being out of our control ...and about climate being no different now, than is usual for the past. As a chaotic system, climate behaves in a simple, robust, non-linear manner; it does not behave in a complex or chaotic, manner [that would describe weather]. If you would learn more than a bit about chaos theory, then you would appreciate why using linear segments to analyze chaotic attractors (and many other aspects of data) does make sense. This is still science; it still works the same. ~

OMG! That is a huge disparity!! At what point will the "green" revolution be accounted for, in those figures? ~ ?

JW, rather than focus on tweaks to the system in any particular year (and trying to blame those), it might help to look at the big picture. If you look at the rise to dominance of our GDP, by the financial sector, then you can see that most of the "growth" over the past few decades has been only supported by that sector. Next, you need to see that loans were the only "commodity" with enough volume to circulate among enough people to provide everyone with some profit. That is the way economies are supposed to work; commodities (and value added products made from basic commodities) are produced and circulated to consumers, and people take a little profit along the chain. That always seems to work with tangible commodities. === The financial sector did the same thing with loans, treating them as a commodity and trying to generate more loans (and derivatives of existing loans) to produce enough volume of commodity so everyone (involved with the financial sector) could make some profit as the commodity circulated. On paper is seems to make sense, but in reality loans are not a tangible commodity with intrinsic value. Plus they are only circulated within the financial sector, so the chain of profit does not flow out to any consumer outside of the financial sector. It does keep our GDP looking big, but it is based on a house of (paper loans) cards. And we exported this strategy to most of the rest of the developed world. A few countries had laws restricting such activities, such as Canada and Germany (and Japan wasn't eligible) so they are doing much better now, as are many developing countries which were not "stable enough to take advantage" of such a neat trick. But as a big picture strategy to make money (without producing anything of value) it is not sustainable, especially on a global scale. I agree that the government let this happen. They wanted to keep the GDP up, and the financial sector had ideas on how to do that. As the scheme succeeded, more enthusiasm (lobbying) snowballed, restrictions on creative financing were rolled back, and here we are today. I blame the physicists who provided the business folks with formulas to get so creative with finances, but that doesn't change where we are now or what we need to do--focus on creating tangible value--getting away from ideologies and back to the basics of economic theory. === ~ But about "bigger" government specifically....As the economy shrank over the past few years, the relative proportion of the govt. slice has, of course seemed to grow (relatively); but the growth of the Homeland Security Dept. is very real and does contribute to the fraction of GDP that government is contributing to.... === ~ p.s. Physicists: please don't get mad about my comment; it's just (mostly) a joke!

...about humus in general, as a fractional redox moiety; or about my wild speculations on structured or super-structured effects ...or airborne humus? ~

Real life is not a reference electrode, but it is full of relativity! ...I also noticed, "Many chemists live and die without ever seeing a bi-metallic complex." and felt compelled to add: Look beneath your feet! Humus in the soil is composed of many such molecules; and more even with 3, 4..., n+1, metallic moieties. Fractional redox fields abound, organize, and form superwaves ...iwstm. ~ "These calculations reinforce the importance of conceiving of the rhizosphere broadly in space and time." --p.194 "The close correspondence of rhizospheres and soil redoximorphic features (Fimmen 2004)... hypothesize that rhizosphere-stimulated Fe-redox cycling [add] significant controls [to] soil acid-base reactions." --p.194 "Reduction of FeIII increases iron solubility with respect to oxide/hydroxide phases by as much as eight orders of magnitude." --p.193 "Contrary to the bulk soil environment with generally abundant O2, rhizospheres can be reducing environments due to the turnover of decomposable organic compounds... and root respiration, [where] steep redox gradients can develop...." --p.191 see also, google: rhizosphere-induced mottling === ++ Teaser... for insights on the "smell" of rust ...or paths of lightning.... "Reaction kinetics of adsorbed FeII at pH < 5 is relatively rapid compared to aqueous FeII (Wherli 1990). --p.193 [...adsorbed onto organic acids/odors/humic substances?] ~

While there are some perspectives where it is helpful to think of the atmosphere's many layers as a fluid (or oil/water mixture with boundary layers and thermoclines, etc.), and it has "currents" and many other analogs to fluid dynamics, and it might be thought of as a fairly thin (rarified or low-density) fluid mixture, and it has a fairly dynamic interface connecting it to the oceans; buoyancy and surface tension do not get stonger in "thinner fluids" --which is what you seem to base your ideas (alternative to gravity) upon-- as you extrapolate from Sea to Sky. ...hope that helps: ~ p.s. Just because we don't "understand" gravity, doesn't mean we need an alternative explanation this instant. It would only be a breakthrough if we needed such knowledge this instant, but the various models of gravity are working well enough for now. Soon though, we may need more; so keep learning and thinking, and looking and listening. ~

And the OP could also google: tidal ground movement CERN or look up Earth tide on Wikipedia ...(but not today as they are black in protest of SOPA/PIPA). ~ Thanks for the great post!

No, I'm on antibiotics though. But technically, every atom is contributing to the summation of all, including the atoms that make up our neurons; and so it seemed to me the statement was true. ~

It has nothing to do with a kind of force field of space, but that "personal space" is the sum total of all the force fields of space, isn't it? ~ Happy Birthday!