The cloud forests and coastal plains of northern South America are very humid with lots of sunshine and rain for much of the year. I am leaving the majority of my 110 acres here in Ecuador in secondary forest for the wildlife. Of course when the shit really hits the fan in the north, ownership will likely mean very little. I try to stay on good terms with my neighbors.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 4:45 PM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Between 1990 and 2000 I owned 40 acres of Piñon-Juniper land about 90 > miles south of Santa Fe. I recently saw an item about a highly effective > carbon sequestration grass. It has stiff leaves about 3 or 4 feet long. > For a moment I thought that I should have planted that stuff there. Then I > realized that watering it would be a severe problem. Wells there produce a > maximum of 16 gallons of water per minute. The neighbors would have been > annoyed since they wouldn't have bought the carbon argument. > > ----------------------------------- > Frank Wimberly > > My memoir: > https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly > > My scientific publications: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 > > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 2:00 PM David Eric Smith <desm...@santafe.edu> wrote: > >> And not only forests. >> >> Restructure agriculture. The perennial polyculture concept for which Wes >> Jackson founded the Land Institute >> https://landinstitute.org/ >> Is meant to base farming on a cropping system with the structure of a >> prairie sod. Either farmland or prairie may have 1/2 meter to 2m of annual >> stem and leaf mass above ground. But farmland today has a few 10s of cm >> (if that) of annual subsurface root. The prairie sods of the Great Plains, >> before being plowed up, could have 2m depth of perennial root mass. In >> addition to greater capacity to absorb water from episodic rain and deliver >> it under conditions of drought, it retains nutrients, reducing inputs with >> their energy waste, and runoff. 2m doesn’t seem so much compared to a >> tree, but if one multiplies this by the area currently under commodity >> cropping, it may amount to more carbon than the part of the US currently >> under forest. >> >> I like to think of forest and grassland as part of a whole nutrient-shed >> pipeline. Trees mine the deep rock in ways that herbs can’t, and the leaf >> litter is a surface deposit at the margins of prairie basins. The >> grasslands can depend on the flux of that rare material, recycling along >> the way, as it runs eventually to the continental drainage as the >> biotically augmented part of continental weathering. >> >> These kinds of redesigns are whole-system oriented, and really have to be >> understood, I think, in the language of public goods. So we are looking at >> government, civil society, culture, or something to coordinate and require >> a system restructure. >> >> The idea that “there’s no way we can get these sociopathic bastards to do >> anything” is I think a reflection of the luxury of not yet being scared. >> The sailors haven’t stopped swearing because they don’t realize the ship is >> in trouble. There is a wonderful documentary >> >> https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-power-of-community-how-cuba-survived-peak-oil-2006/ >> about the restructuring of Cuban agriculture when oil suddenly >> disappeared, and also international credit, on a span of months surrounding >> the disassembly of the former Soviet Union. All of a sudden, for the >> people, it was “change or starve”. For the government it was “change or >> get your head chopped off in a revolution”. Remarkable how choices like >> that suddenly opened the possibility space, both for single actors as >> smallholders, and for the government as an aid and coordinator rather than >> an impediment. Japan and Australia contributed a little bit in the way of >> resources and know-how, but most fo the credit goes to Cuban agronomic and >> medical knowledge that was already resident and just needing support to be >> better deployed. The best thing about the Cuban story is that it doesn’t >> distill down into sound bites. The restructure was complex, with to-task >> decisions of many kinds needing to be made. And there was no starvation >> and no revolution. They came through it nutritionally at least as well-off >> as they had started, if somewhat less overfed on fast calories and pork. >> >> I am brought back again to Ortega y Gasset’s argument that cultures >> collapse because ideas that were once real and tied to the substance of >> living become conventionalized to topics, phrases, and empty repetition of >> others rather than understandings held by oneself of concrete problems that >> need solving. We envision the possibilities too much in terms of the >> habits of people around us because they are stubborn and we don’t see the >> levers to move them. Glen is right, too: when everything about the society >> around you makes waste the available method, it requires a kind of proteus >> to invent a whole survivable life for himself with new methods. There are >> such people, but it consumes all of their effort just to live without >> harm. If a society makes more non-damaging ways of doing things available, >> ordinary people have the option of living with less harm, and the proteuses >> in one or another domain have some spare energy to try to extend what is >> possible, rather than just tread water. >> >> Anyway, >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 3, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I think he should say reducing greenhouse gases and >> >> Other mitigation strategies include: >> >> - Improving the energy efficiency of buildings to reduce emissions >> from heating/cooling >> - Planting forests and tree to remove excess carbon dioxide from our >> atmosphere >> - Reducing fuel emissions associated with motor vehicles >> >> I like the planting approaches. >> ----------------------------------- >> >> >> Frank Wimberly >> >> My memoir: >> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly >> >> My scientific publications: >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 >> >> Phone (505) 670-9918 >> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Merle, >>> >>> >>> >>> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment. >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> Nicholas Thompson >>> >>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>> >>> Clark University >>> >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels >>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM >>> *To:* Tom Johnson <t...@jtjohnson.com>; The Friday Morning Applied >>> Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions >>> >>> >>> >>> Dave writes: >>> >>> >>> >>> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that >>> fail to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise >>> in nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.> >>> >>> Tom writes: >>> >>> >>> >>> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or >>> rational concept? > >>> >>> >>> >>> *Side effects* is a good way to look at it. No drug that works >>> doesn't have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the >>> treatment do its thing. >>> >>> >>> >>> Marcus >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Tom Johnson < >>> t...@jtjohnson.com> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >>> friam@redfish.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions >>> >>> >>> >>> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a >>> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential >>> alternative.) >>> >>> Tom Johnson >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <thompnicks...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Well we certainly agree on that. >>> >>> So should we put it before the Jury? >>> >>> N >>> >>> Nicholas Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >>> Clark University >>> thompnicks...@gmail.com >>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM >>> To: friam@redfish.com >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions >>> >>> Nick, >>> >>> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it >>> is >>> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more >>> scary >>> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect >>> existing >>> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all >>> the joys it will bring us. >>> >>> davew >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: >>> > Dave, >>> > >>> > I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them >>> > as a challenge. >>> > >>> > What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if >>> > somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate >>> > change and human activity? By what process, with what attitudes, by >>> > what rules of engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that >>> > matter. Because, if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement >>> > would seem to be beyond human reach. >>> > >>> > So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as >>> > stated. They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not >>> > as bad as they were predicted to be. Yet, I find, I am inclined to >>> > believe that in fact Things are worse. The only specific data I feel >>> > I have been exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial >>> > melting. But even there, I would be hard pressed to match your >>> > specific references to any of my own. So, I guess the conclusion is, >>> > I disagree, but I don't know what I am talking about. Ugh! >>> > >>> > I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following >>> concern: >>> > what we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term >>> > climate warming, is increases in year-to-year climate variability. >>> > You can grow rape seed in Canada and maize in the US, and as the >>> > climate alters, the bands of climate supporting these two crops will >>> > move north. But what happens if one year the climate demands one crop >>> > and the next the other? And the switch from one to the other is >>> > entirely unpredictable. Anybody who plants a garden knows that only >>> > two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of your garden: >>> > first frost and last frost. The average frost free period in my >>> > garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short >>> > as 90. And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had >>> > last frost dates in June and first frost dates in early September. It >>> > would take a very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn >>> > my garden from something that could support life for a year in New >>> England >>> into a 30 x 50 wasteplot. >>> > >>> > I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the >>> > Holocene, is a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in >>> climate VARIABILITY. >>> > I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the >>> > last ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent >>> > on that anomalous stability. The neanderthals were not too stupid to >>> > do agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it. >>> > The whole idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make >>> > more or less the same kind of living by staying more or less in the >>> > same place and doing more or less the same thing. A return to >>> > Pleistocene year-to-year variation would obliterate that possibility. >>> > >>> > If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global >>> > Warming-- we are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by >>> > God, I think I could scare the Living Crap out of you. >>> > >>> > The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do >>> > it, and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's >>> > value could be harvested for the long run. >>> > >>> > Happy New Year! >>> > >>> > Nick >>> > >>> > Nicholas Thompson >>> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >>> > thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM >>> > To: friam@redfish.com >>> > Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions >>> > >>> > Questions, that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of >>> climate >>> > change. >>> > >>> > In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that >>> because >>> > of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 >>> degrees >>> > Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 >>> degrees >>> > Fahrenheit by 2020. >>> > >>> > The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature >>> > increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations >>> > being 3-5 by the year 2020. >>> > >>> > The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100. >>> > >>> > The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the >>> end >>> of >>> > domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020. >>> > >>> > The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 >>> degree. >>> > >>> > Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate, >>> > argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly >>> > incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific >>> models, >>> and >>> > over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or >>> > simply "circulation" motives. >>> > >>> > In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar >>> everyone >>> > expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush? >>> > >>> > Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the >>> proposed >>> > "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?" >>> > >>> > Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to >>> carbon >>> > scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human >>> > socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them? >>> > >>> > Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if >>> so, >>> how >>> > do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our >>> > chances? >>> > >>> > davew >>> > >>> > ============================================================ >>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >>> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>> > >>> > >>> > ============================================================ >>> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>> > >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
