Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology Fact and Fiction Bee collapse
On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Wayne Tyson wrote: I'd especially like well-informed comments on this article: http://www.nationofchange.org/worldwide-honey-bee-collapse-lesson-ecology-1371046688 The pesticide industry provides balanced information on the honey bee health issue. For example, in their Fact Sheet, Bayer Crop-Science makes these two key points: http://beecare.bayer.com/media-center/fact-sheet 1) Despite ongoing reports on substantial bee losses in some regions, the overall number of honey bee colonies worldwide has increased by some 45% over the last 50 years, not decreased. 2) It is widely believed among the scientific community that Varroa mite is the main factor affecting the health of honey bee colonies. Both Bayer and Monsanto are actively working on Varroa mite control solutions. Monsanto Research: Beekeepers, Monsanto come together for summit Jun 13, 2013 http://www.arcamax.com/business/businessnews/s-1341265?source=outbrain Excerpt: The company is working on a new technology intended to control a tiny insect, called the varroa mite, that has been a major factor in the decimation of honey bees. If Monsanto successfully brings the technology to market, it could be a blockbuster. Bayer Crop-Science Research: A new way of protecting bees against varroa mites http://beecare.bayer.com/media-center/news/news-detail/a-new-way-of-protecting-bees-against-varroa-mites Excerpt: In the past, efforts to control this parasite have concentrated exclusively on treatment in the hive, but foraging bees then bring back new mites when they return home. Bayer’s scientists have been working with bee researchers from Frankfurt University to develop the varroa gate, which is designed to prevent reinfection. This innovative front door should effectively protect the hive against the deadly parasite. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Take the Train to ESA Minneapolis
So then, why take the train to ESA? 1. Reduce the carbon footprint of science. Not realistically possible. You're a student now, but when you enter the working world - either in private industry or academia - there is a very high probability your position will require you to travel by air to maximize the productivity of your time. And both the number of scientists and scientific conferences has been increasing over time. So the net carbon footprint of scientists has been increasing and can be expected to for the forseeable future. While many of us have made changes to our liftestyles to reduce our carbon footprints In the past we've had discussions about the vehicles todays ecologists drive...mainly heavy, hence gas guzzling, 3400-4500 pound all wheel drive models. But that wasn't the case 30-40 year ago. Back then an ecologist was content to drive lighter, much less powerful two wheel drive vehicles, like 2500 pound compact pickup trucks and 2,800 pound VW Buses. And if they needed four wheel drive they were willing to drive a 2,690 pound Toyota Corolla 4WD wagon: http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/1416/1161/3538080003_large.jpg So there's been an increase in the carbon footprint with regard to vehicle choice as well. History has shown us that acts of symbolism work (think civil rights protests in the 1960s) Historically austerity type symbolism has very often failed to foster reductions in per capita resource consumption. On the first Earth Day (1970) for example, the average size of a new home was about 1,500 square feet, but by 2007 that figure had increased by a whopping 67% to 2,500 square feet: http://www.avidhomestudios.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/size_graph1.jpg Thus by multiple measures; i.e. frequency of air travel, vehicle weight and horsepower choices, home size choice and so forth, the carbon footprint of the 30+ year old ecologists that are settled into their careers has been steadily increasing since Earth Day 1970. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Take the Train to ESA Minneapolis
On Apr 28, 2013, at 4:49 AM, Mary Anne Carletta wrote: And, of course, Boeing is always right in its predictions (not to mention self-serving), so there's no point in individuals making any effort. Really? The forum recently had a thread discussing the importance of math. Here are some math realities: Airbus forecasts near doubling of freighter fleet http://www.aircargoworld.com/Air-Cargo-News/2012/09/airbus-forecasts-near-doubling-of-freighter-fleet/049393 Gas Guzzling SUVs Popular in China http://news.discovery.com/autos/drive/suvs-popular-china-130422.htm SUV in India has a large market base, and the demand is growing exponentially with time. http://current-trends-now.com/2011/03/growing-suv-market-in-india/ Ford Taps Russia’s Growing Suv Market http://www.automotiveworld.com/articles/ford-taps-russias-growing-suv-market/ Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Take the Train to ESA Minneapolis
On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:21 PM, Reinmann, Andrew, Brett wrote: If just 100 of us travel half-way across the country via train instead of flying we will mitigate climate change to the same extent as taking 15 cars out of commission for a whole year! Yes, but consider the big picture: Boeing's 20-Year Forecast Predicts World Fleet Will Double in Size http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/76670.html# So as with the native plants in landscaping issue, taking the train would be a largely symbolic gesture, not one that could help mitigate, in any mathematically meaningful way, the expected near doubling of CO2 emissions from passenger jets over the next 20 years. Even the newest jet models are only slightly more fuel efficient than the old models, hence their CO2 emissions are only a slightly lower. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Arguments for Native Plants
Vast stretches of the USA and southern Canada are already dominated by non-natives and have been for a century or more. So adding natives to the landscaping of a new residential subdivision or industrial park is generally a largely symbolic gesture, not one that will significantly offset landscape scale declines in native pollinators caused by the sprawl itself. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] biodiversity in one cubic foot
On Dec 1, 2012, at 11:26 PM, David Inouye wrote: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/11/29/166156242/cornstalks-everywhere-but-nothing-else-not-even-a-bee An interesting comparison of the biodiversity found in one cubic foot of some different habitats. An Iowa cornfield came out pretty poorly by comparison with some natural habitats elsewhere in the world. Crop Consutant Carl W made this comment about the article: it seems quite wild to compare the biodiversity of a corn field with that of natural environments. I mean this project could of been done any ag system, organic or not, now or 100 years before... the biodiversity of any farming system, by design is going to reduce biodiversity compared to natural ecosystems. The article also lamented the lack of bees in the middle of the Iowa cornfield. But the article did not mention that margins of the GMO corn and soybean fields in fields in the upper Midwest are actually teaming with nectar feeding bumblebees, honeybees, butterflies and beetles. Here's a 9 minute video I shot last August in a region of south-central Minnesota (near Fairfax Gibbon, Minnesota) that had extremely intense monocultures of GMO corn and soybeans that were grown from neonicotinoid systemic insecticide treated seed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTJZFJ1egGQ The article also lamented the lack of many ants in the middle of the Iowa cornfield. But farmers routinely rotate corn with soybeans and when the soybeans are grown ants can become abundant as the owners of the Hefty Seed Company based in southeastern South Dakota explain in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXqp7UXf5xs There can also be plenty of earthworms in upper midwestern corn fields too despite the pesticide use: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a13QsgMj4h4 Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
On Jul 6, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Joshua Springer wrote: Hopefully society will change as people like Paul are replaced by folks who are more forward-looking and those who are proactive about humanity's long term future on this planet. OK, maybe we should start discussing what being proactive would entail on a world wide scale. Couple of examples: How is it conceivable that worldwide, people could be convinced to cut their plans for jet travel by 50% during the next 20 years which would in turn cause Boeing to shelve plans to double the size of the world's fleet of jet aircraft during that time frame? How is it conceivable that worldwide, people could be convinced to cut their plans for plans for auto ownership by 50% during the next 30 years which would in turn cause the carmakers to shelve plans to double the size of the world's fleet of cars during that time frame? Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Cemeteries as habitat
On May 2, 2012, at 11:39 AM, John Mickelson wrote: Wondering what folks thoughts are re: the extent to which cemeteries (and, to a lesser extent: ball fields, play grounds, golf courses etc...) really serve as habitat. Along the California coast, native monarch butterflies routinely use cemetery and golf course fairway trees as overwintering cluster sites: San Luis Cemetery, San Luis Obispo, Calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrEBTFAlEdw Monarch Bay Golf Course, San Leandro, Calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77NIWVT9fHA Morro Bay State Park Golf Course, Morro Bay, Calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX70cjtX29k Chuck Corica Golf Course, Alameda, Calif. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdLm-Gr5A9E Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Monarch butterfly migration status
Thanks for your observations, David. Here's an eyewitness account of how the migrating monarchs are still able to findnectar in drought plagued south-central Texas: http://www.learner.org/cgi-bin/jnorth/jn-query-byday?1317405754 Observed on Gentry Creek ten miles north of Junction, TX. I counted approximately 200 Monarchs feeding on blooming plants along creek banks in one area. Some were roosting. In another area on the creek I counted approximately 300 Monarchs feeding and roosting on native Pecan leaves. Both of the areas have been traditional roosts in the past years. Last year there were none, so this is encouraging. Blooming plants include: Salvia farinacea, Goldenrod, Mullen, Frostweed, Smooth Bidens, Buttonbush. Our area is in an extreme drought, but these plants are along the creek banks. Judy Hall, Junction, TX Paul Cherubini On Sep 29, 2011, at 6:05 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: Paul and others, I live in central Oklahoma. The photos you show look like the isolated patches of bloom that I see around. Maximilian sunflower should be at its peak right now. Instead, I see only scattered groups of a few plants, versus the acres of fields and right of way normally covered in yellow in late September. Snow on the Mountain (a euphorb) should also have extensive stands of blooming plants. Again, scattered. There are almost no fields of broomweed in bloom, one of the most drought tolerant late composites. Little ironweed is blooming, and little goldenrod compared to normal years. I can find patches of all these, but not the extensive fields. On my own property, I have a large patch of goldenrod, and lots of common and Maximilian sunflowers. Partridge pea as well. All should be at peak right now. Instead, I have isolated plants with flowers, others seem very late or simply have begun to wilt without the heads opening. Common sunflowers are dwarfed compared to norm! al years, so many fewer flower heads. My Liatris (gayfeather), an important late composite, simply failed to emerge from the ground. I hope the corms are alive. David McNeely, Edmond, Oklahoma
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Monarch butterfly migration status
with monarchs on them like this: Still photo: http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu87/4ALC/new/watonga.jpg Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_apsQSKfzU My conclusions from this trip: 1) Despite the drought, the supply of available nectar plants in the hell zone is vastly greater than the number of monarchs hence the monarchs are not having a hard time locating nectar plants nor are they drinking the plants dry of nectar. 2) In the hell zone the monarchs are in migratory mode for most of the day rather than in feeding mode which further suggests they are not seriously nutritionally stressed. A nutritionally stressed monarch will be preocupied with feeding as all experience monarch breeders and handlers know. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Ecosystems and Energy Biofuels Homage to Principle or Deceptive Fraud?
On Aug 16, 2011, at 7:19 AM, malcolm McCallum wrote: There is a reason many midwestern herpetologists refer to the region as a cornfield desert. any uniculture (trees to moss) will be essentially a desert for other organisms not directly associated with the plant. Add in the agrichemicals and you got sterile blah. Thousands of midwestern corn farmers as well as the field representatives from Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience know that frogs are very abundant along the margins of the herbicide tolerant GMO corn and soybean fields. They were this abundant along the margins of the corn and soybean GMO monocultures at Morris, Minnesota on Aug, 3, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1JHJKMEsVs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr8k2U5saDI Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Judith S. Weis wrote: Regarding atrazine -so you choose to believe Syngenta, the manufacturer of the chemical, rather than a highly respected university scientist (who has nothing to gain) who has published his work in the most prestigious journals? I don't!! Judith, I provided this link: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk in which both independent scientists and government regulators around the world question Hayes' Frog Study Data, hence many of them have not acted on his findings. This frog vs atrazine case is relevant to the current thread because it demonstrates, in my opinion, that university scientists have more of a credibility problem in the eyes of the public, industry and regulators rather than communications problem. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or business spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Yes, just look at the sensationalized stories the universities themselves put out. Three real life examples: 1) Popular weed killer demasculinizes frogs, disrupts their sexual development, UC Berkeley study shows http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/04/15_frogs.html Because the herbicide has been in use for 40 years in some 80 countries, its effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians 2) Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies, 3) Butterflies on the Brink http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/magazine/Spring-11/Butterflies.html Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction. Launched in 2001 and now under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. The ultimate goal of the program is to help shape conservation management techniques that will stem the population decline or even boost the number of monarchs. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Exactly how are these stories sensational. Is there anything in them that is not factual? Tyrone Hayes work with atrazine and frog development is given substantial credence by knowledgeable folks in the field. The UC Berkeley story said sensationally: its [atrazine herbicide] effect on sexual development in male frogs could be one of many factors in the global decline of amphibians Syngenta says: http://tinyurl.com/6fobfnk Does atrazine affect frog sexual development? The facts are clear: atrazine does not. Government bodies reviewing the science have concluded that atrazine is safe to use. The EPA and independent researchers around the world have rejected claims made by Dr. Tyrone Hayes about atrazine, noting that his data do not support his conclusions and questioning why he refuses to make his raw data available for independent scientific review. The 1999 Cornell University story said sensationally: Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies. But since 1999 Bt corn has been widely adopted by by American farmers. Worse, Roundup Ready corn and soybeans also were widely adopted and the resulting heavy use of Roundup herbicide eliminated most of the milkweed plants that used to grow within these crops What was the effect of this one-two punch on monarch abundance? These butterflies are still spectacularly abundant in the most intensive corn and soybean regions of the upper Midwest such as in southern Minnesota: Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/bia.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4e3S2sm13g Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/danub.jpg Still photo: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/wintf.jpg Video of the same butterflies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCnU7PB9to The Cal Poly State University story said sensationally: Studies since the early 1990s indicate Western U.S. populations of the monarch butterfly are headed for extinction...under the direction of biology professor Francis Villablanca, Monarch Alert helps generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence. But the serious decline of the western USA monarch parallels serious landscape scale declines in western milkweed abundance caused by greatly increased herbiciding of roadsides, vacant lots, crop margin, railway lines, etc. http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/herba.jpg http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/herbd.jpg in combination with urban sprawl: http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/sprawla.jpg http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/sprawlb.jpg Since Cal Poly does not know how this ongoing intensive weed control or sprawl can be stopped, there's no conceivable way Cal Poly could: generate data needed to determine just how experts can bring about a monarch resurgence [in milkweed, hence monarch] abundance. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Wayne Tyson wrote: The problem is credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of the public. The public is used to hearing rather wildly conflicting information about climate change from the scientific community. In 1974 some claimed that global cooling was a looming problem: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html More recently there have been accusations of fraud: On Oct. 6, 2010 Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara wrote this: http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/hal-lewis-quits-aps/ For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow [American Physical Society] all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. Paul Cherubini
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology
Wayne Tyson wrote: Please supply evidence that genetic engineering or any other method can double the productivity of any species without increasing the amount of water and nutrients, I'll settle for a ratio of total biomass or grain yield ratio to water Wayne, lets look at the track record of the biotech and industrialized ag industry in the USA. In 2009 the The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture published a report http://tinyurl.com/26su7y2 that looked at yields vs. land use, irrigation water use, energy use, soil loss, and climate impact for the Corn, Cotton, Soybeans and Wheat grown in the USA during the 20 year period from 1987-2007 With regard to Yield Per Irrigated Acre vs. Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre during the period 1987-2007 the authors found: 1) Corn Yields Per Irrigated Acre increased about 24% while Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre decreased about 11% http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/corn.jpg 2) Cotton Yields Per Irrigated Acre increased about 69% while Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre decreased about 30% http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/cotton.jpg 3) Soybean Yields Per Irrigated Acre increased about 23% while Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre decreased about 4% http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/soybean.jpg 4) Wheat Yields Per Irrigated Acre increased about 11% while Irrigation Water Applied Per Acre increased about 10% http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae78/18R-C/wheat.jpg Thus with the exception of wheat, these data show the biotech and industrialized ag industry has an excellent track record of substantially increasing the yields of irrigated crops while at the same time substantially decreasing water usage. The failure in wheat could be due to the fact that industry has not come out with much biotech wheat to date. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology
Wayne Tyson wrote: What's the irrigation efficiency component of those statistics? Are there any actual experimental data that compare strains under laboratory controls? I'm talking strictly about actual water consumption per unit biomass or seed volume/weight, not field observations loaded with variables and open to manipulation. But beyond that, upon what theoretical foundation is the assertion that GMO alone performs these miracles, without any change in water and nutrients? Wayne, the biotech companies have not claimed GMO alone will double yields in 30 years while at the same time consuming fewer resources (water, fertilizer, fossil fuel, land) and producing less carbon dioxide. Monsanto explains the doubling of yields of corn, soybeans, cotton and canola in 30 years can reasonably be accomplished via using a combination of advanced Plant Breeding, Biotechnology and Agronomic Practices http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/sustainable-ag/new_vision_for_ag.asp The American Soybean Association gets into some specifics in it's brochure on Ten Reasons US Soybeans Are Sustainable http://www.ussoyexports.org/resources/USSEC_sustainability.pdf Examples from the brochure: a) Herbicide tolerant [GMO] soybeans enable farmers to practice no-till production. b) The no-till production method enables farms to reduce deep plowing and multiple soil cultivation operations with heavy equipment. c) The reduction in deep plowing reduces the loss of soil and moisture. d) No-till allows the residue from the previous crop to be left in the field which eventually degrades and thus increases the amount of topsoil in the fields. e) Narrow row planting enables soybeans to grow so closely together they crowd out competing weeds and reduce soil moisture loss. f) Reduced need for heavy soil cultivation equipment reduces fossil fuel use and emissions and reduces soil compaction which in turn is good for earthworm populations, soil moisture retention and reduced water runoff into waterways. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Physiology Productivity Promises and BS Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology
Wayne Tyson wrote: Please supply evidence that genetic engineering or any other method can double the productivity of any species without increasing the amount of water and nutrients, including a cogent explanation of just how this is done. Wayne, according to the National Corn Growers Association: Farmers today produce 70 percent more corn per pound of fertilizer than in the 1970s. http://ncga.com/files/pdf/worldofcorn2010.pdf USDA fertilizer use statistics http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/ show US consumption of fertlizer for corn, cotton, wheat and soybeans has been generally stable since the mid-1970's whereas the yields per acre have risen dramatically: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/index.asp Specific examples of yield increases since 1979: Corn: Up about 63% http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/cornyld.asp Cotton Up about 52% http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/cotnyld.asp Soybeans Up about 53% http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.asp Winter Wheat Up about 26% http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/wwyld.asp With regard to your question just how this is done Monsanto explains in general terms on it's website: how we can use breeding, biotechnology and better agronomy to help double yields. http://tinyurl.com/2ag8zl Excerpt: With the genome sequencer, Monsanto researchers are able to learn in 10 days what it used to take them 10 years of research to discover - that's why it's playing an integral role in the company's commitment to double yields by 2030. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] worlds authorities in sustainable ag/meat/ag ecology
I would say the big biotech companies are the world's leading authorities with regard to the issue of how we can feed the world in the coming decades. Example: http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/sustainable-ag/default.asp Excerpts: By 2050, say United Nations’ experts, our planet must double food production to feed an anticipated population of 9.3 billion people. By 2030, Monsanto commits to help farmers produce more and conserve more by: Developing improved seeds that help farmers double yields from 2000 levels for corn, soybeans, cotton, and spring-planted canola, with a $10 million grant pledged to improve wheat and rice yields.” Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
So, are ecologists just as much a part of the problem as everyone else? Yes, especially the middle and senior aged ecologists. You can gain data on the lifestyles of ecologists and biologists yourself in a a few hours time using your home computer. Simply visit the Biology Dept. websites of some univeristies and copy down the names of the full professor level faculty members (as they tend to be middle and senior aged). Then obtain the home addresses of these professors at whitepages.com or using a people search type website. Then look up the size and value of their homes at a real estate value website such as http://bankofamerica.cyberhomes.com/ It will quickly become apparent to you that a majority of full professor level biology/ecology professors live in above average sized homes on above average sized lots. With regard to vehicle choice, we've discussed this many times on Ecolog-l and it was clear that a substantial percentage of ecologists own a heavy, four wheel or all wheel drive vehicle that gets only 20-25 miles per gallon or less (e.g. even a Subaru Forester weighs 3300-3600 lbs). Factor in all the extra travel ecologists do compared to an average person (the average person has only a high school education) and it becomes apparent that in general, ecologists consume MORE open space and petroleum resources than the average person, especially during their middle and senior years. It is also instructive to visit the websites of ecological or environmental activist organizations and copy down the names of the middle and senior aged board members and officers to investigate their lifestyles. The same pattern emerges - most live in above average size homes. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on sustainable growth)
William Silvert wrote: a stable population with a better quality of life does not necessarily mean more resources are needed. some places have achieved high levels of economic growth without comparable resource consumption by taking advantage of good education and financial innovation, notably Hong Kong and Singapore. Bill, could you elaborate more specifically about what you mean by a better quality of life? In Hong Kong the average size of a home is 450 square feet (2500 square feet was the average size of a new home in the USA in 2007 and 984 square feet was the average size in 1950). So climbing into one's bed from the doorway is a common occurrence for Hong Kongers. http://www.tuition.com.hk/hong_kong.htm And in 1999, there were only 59 cars per 1000 people in Hong Kong (vs 474 per 1000 in the USA) http://tinyurl.com/np36aa Likewise in Singapore 90 percent of the population lives in high-rise public housing and there are only 101 cars per 1000 people: http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=1908 Both Hong Kong and Singapore have little arable land and few natural resources, so they must import most of their food plus raw materials such as wood and petroleum. So it appears to me the underlying reasons why the people of Hong Kong and Singapore are achieving high levels of economic growth without comparable resource consumption is because they: a) don't have to consume land to grow food crops b) don't have to consume forests to obtain their building materials and paper products c) don't have to drill for oil or natural gas to obtain the petroleum the country uses to manufacture the products they export (e.g. electronics). d) are willing to live in extremely small homes and forsake the routine use of automobiles. What bothers me about the push for a steady state economy is that it's advocates claim no major lifestyle changes need to be made. So all it really appears to accomplish is to slightly slow down the the ongoing unsustainable rate of depletion of land, air and water resources. Worse, I feel it distracts the public in the USA, Canada, etc., from have to face the reality that serious sacrifices (in terms of home size, auto size and use, family size, etc.,) such as those the people of Hong Kong and Singapore are already making would be necessary to even start to come close to achieving a sustainable resource consumption rate. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Mosquitoes as keystone species?
Conor_Flynn wrote: we've noticed something interesting: there are no mosquitoes in or near Alamosa. This is because the city sprays for them regularly. We have also noticed fewer grasshoppers, bees, and frogs than we might otherwise expect. Michael Cooperman wrote: I don't know what chemical your county uses for mosquito control but probably it is not specific to mosquitoes and would affect other insects just as strongly. Interesting these comments suggesting great harm to both mosquitoes and non-target insects appeared just after Mitch Cruzan said: Critical thinking/reading is a primary goal of all graduate programs and is something we introduce undergraduates to in advanced courses. A critical thinker would say it wildly speculative for anyone to claim, without extensive direct evidence, that: 1) There really are no mosquitoes and fewer grasshoppers, bees, and frogs in Alamosa, Colorado. 2) Mosquito spraying is the underlying cause of these declines. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Mosquitoes as keystone species?
Bill Silvert wrote: Flynn indicated that he had a team of colleagues working over several years who made this observation. Flynn made no mention of the number of years they had been observing. Nor is it unreasonable to postulate that maybe the reason that there are fewer mosquitoes is that they were killed. Flynn did not say fewer mosquitoes, he said there are no mosquitoes in or near Alamosa Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Mosquitoes as keystone species?
Michael Cooperman wrote: I respectfully disagree with you. It is not wild speculation to posit widely applied broad-cast insecticides have impacts to non-target organisms, You said the mosquito chemical: would affect other insects just as strongly which is speculation. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] GM trees
James Crants wrote: My concern is not so much with the field test as with eventual commercialization and widespread distribution of these trees in places eucalyptus is not currently able to invade. James, the APHIS link I provided in my previous post http://tinyurl.com/mutlmu explained: the Eucalyptus species used by ArborGen, Eucalyptus grandis x Eucalyptus urophyll is not considered invasive. the GE hybrid trees are unlikely to produce seed, the trees are unlikely to hybridize with any nearby species, any offspring are likely to be sickly, and Eucalyptus grandis has difficulty establishing in the wild. Eucalyptus grandis has been grown commercially in Florida since the 1960s and there has been no evidence that the species has escaped from cultivation and has become invasive. There is no reason to believe that adding cold tolerance to this genetic background would increase the likelihood that the species would become invasive. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] GM trees
To learn about the benefits of GM eucalyptus visit the ArborGen website: http://www.arborgen.com/newsroom.php ArborGen trees will allow landowners to grow more wood on less land with fewer agricultural inputs, thus protecting our native forests and ecosystems. To learn about why the United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service doesn't consider GM eucalyptus field tests dangerous for the environment, google arborgen USDA and you'll find this notice: http://tinyurl.com/mutlmu Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice 1. The field test sites are located on secure, private land in Baldwin County, Alabama, and are physically isolated from any sexually compatible Eucalyptus. 2. There is little probability of asexual spread since this hybrid Eucalyptus does not propagate readily without the aid of special environmental conditions. 3. Eucalyptus seed is not adapted to wind dispersal so the dispersal of seed is expected to be limited to the proximity of the field test area. 4. It is unlikely that viable seeds will be produced by the Eucalyptus hybrids in the field test, and it is unlikely that any seeds produced will be able to germinate andproduce viable offspring. Therefore, APHIS concludes that it is not reasonably foreseeable that Eucalyptus seeds will be spread by severe wind events and establish outside of the field site. 5. If any seeds were to be formed due to crossing within the field test, there is very little probability that they will germinate since Eucalyptus seeds have very limited stored food reserves, are intolerant of shade or weedy competition, and need contact with bare mineral soil to successfully germinate. 6. If any viable seeds were to be produced and grow into seedlings, they will be easily identified by monitoring the field sites and destroyed with herbicide treatment or removed by physical means. 8. Horizontal movement of the introduced genes is extremely unlikely. The foreign DNA is stably integrated into the plant genome. 9. No adverse consequences to non-target organisms or environmental quality are expected from the field release of these transgenic Eucalyptus for the reasons stated below. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why should I care about mass extinciton?
What I don't understand is why hardly anybody mentions mass extinctions when they warn of global warming. Can you imagine an Earth with 95% of its species lost? I can't. For many decades a sizable fraction of the worlds population hasn't seemed to mind living in very low species diversity urban and agricultural environments; e.g. Los Angeles http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/smog.jpg Iowa: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/squ.jpg I'm still left wondering why no one TRIES to communicate this [mass extinction] threat to the public. Perhaps you might ask yourself whether or not the high profile people and organizations delivering the mass extinction message have been willing to sacrifice their own material standard of living, comfort and safety for the sake of climate change? Examples: Are any enthusiastically embracing known carbon solutions like nuclear power? NO! Are any enthusiastically embracing a return to the national 55 MPH speed limit and radically downsized cars and engines to quickly cut vehicle related carbon emissions 50%? NO! Are any ethusiastically embracing a return to building and living in 1,000 square foot homes on 5,000 square foot lots as was typical 40-50 years ago? NO! And certainly not Al Gore who lives in this mansion: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/gore.jpg Are any enthusiastically calling for environmental and ecological organizations to merge and consolidate to save energy and natural resources? NO! So if the people and organizations delivering the mass extinction message are not willing to voluntarily make major changes to their own material standard of living, comfort and safety for the sake of preventing mass future extinctions, how can they reasonably expect to convince the public that such changes are urgently neccessary? Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
[ECOLOG-L] Scientists confirm mixing between east and west populations of Monarchs
For years the Monarch Scientific Community has claimed: http://www.monarchwatch.org/biology/westpop.htm There are two geographically distinct Monarch populations in North America. The eastern population overwinters in Mexico and breeds east of the Rocky Mountains. The western population overwinters along the California coast and breeds in areas west of the Rockies. And they published maps like these: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/karen.jpg http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/altizer.jpg http://tinyurl.com/adrlwd leading us to believe monarchs breed only east of and west of the Rocky Mountains and don't mix during migration. We now know those claims are innaccurate. See this article: http://tinyurl.com/cfp69p SCIENTISTS CONFIRM MIXING BETWEEN EAST AND WEST POPULATIONS OF MONARCHS Excerpts: Six rebel monarch butterflies who haven't done their homework seem to have disproven a long-held theory that monarchs east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada and the U.S. migrate to Mexico for the winter, while their western cousins hang out in California during the cold months. This totally blows out of the water (the theory) that there is some sort of hard dividing line between the east and west populations, said Chris Kline, a scientist and former teacher who heads the Southwest Monarch Study. Three monarchs tagged in southern Arizona (west of the Rocky Mountains and just north of the Mexican border) were recovered in California, but another three tagged in Arizona were found in the overwintering colonies in Mexico. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/237Vd.jpg Monarchs in Arizona obviously haven't read the textbook - they're going both directions, said Kline, who was education director at the Boyce Thompson Arboretum in Arizona before moving recently to Columbus, Ohio, where he is education director at Grange Insurance Audubon Center. Obviously they're not playing by the same ground rules as all the other ones are. Kline has team members in Mexico searching for his distinctive light blue tags - tiny stickers placed on a particular spot on a butterfly's hindwing that are considered not to harm the insect. Other tagging programs, such as Monarch Watch's, use white tags. The old theory was that the Continental Divide was the magical dividing line, which means I have had three that have flown the wrong way, he said. A more recent theory is that the dividing line runs from Boise, Idaho, to Yuma, Ariz., which means the other three have flown the wrong way. Kline has had monarchs recovered in Mexico and California in recent years, but he said the results weren't taken seriously because the butterflies were farm-raised and their navigational systems may have been mixed up. Now we've got two wild butterflies that have done the exact same thing as what those farm-raised ones released in Phoenix did, which I think adds more credence to the issue, he said. One wild monarch was tagged in Canelo, Ariz., and recovered in the El Rosario monarch reserve in Mexico. http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/157xb.jpg http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/157Xa.jpg The other was tagged just 12 miles southwest of Canelo in Bog Hole, Ariz.,but recovered in Ellwood Main, one of several overwintering sites near Santa Barbara, Calif. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/237aa.jpg http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/237ac.jpg Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Economic Growth
Seems to me that regardless of whether the economy is growing or not, footprints and consumption will not soon substantially decline unless the public is pursuaded to make sacrifices in their material standard of living, comfort, convenience and safety. Examples of sacrifices that could immediately and substantially reduce ecological footprints and resource consumption without the need for new research or technologies: 1) Reinstate the National 55 MPH speed limit to cut gasoline consumption and carbon emissions 15-20%. 2) Sharply downsize vehicles and engines like we did in the late 1970's in response to the 1974 Arab oil embargo, further cutting gasoline consumption and carbon emissions another 15-20%. 3) Offer the public major tax incentives for buying and living in 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 1 car garage, 1,000 square foot homes like the public was willing to live in during the 1950's and 60's. 4) Implement major tax penalties for buying and living in larger homes. 5) Stop funding new road and road widening projects designed primarily to improve highway safety. 6) Stop funding roadside mowing and spraying designed to improve highway safety. In the 50's and 60's mowing and spraying was rare. 7) Abolish the recent new laws that in some States require homeowners to mow or spray a 100 foot perimeter around their homes for fire suppression purposes. A major problem with proposals of this nature is that ecologists and environmentalists themselves havn't been receptive to these sorts of low tech, immediate footprint and consumption solutions that don't involve new research and technologies and do require sacrifices even though the sacrifices merely involve acceptance of the material standard of living, comfort, safety and convenience they had back on Earth Day 1970. An inherent problem of what the ecologists favor (advanced technology solutions) is that successful solutions (e.g. GMO corn successfully delivered 25% better yields) inevitably end up feeding the increased consumption treadmill (e.g. the 25% yield advantage was used for increased consumption purposes instead of being used to cut the acreage planted in corn by 25%) which in turn feeds the advanced technology solutions treadmill all over again. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Insecticide Decimates Tadpole Populations Through the Food Chain
Dr. Rick Relyea wrote: Pitt Research Shows That Low Concentrations of Common Insecticide Can Decimate Tadpole Populations Through the Food Chain Dr. Relyea, your study did not show that any routine, legally compliant applications Malathion insecticide (such as the aerial applications typically used for mosquito control) can decimate tadpole populations through the food chain in a natural wetland system. It also did not demonstrate these routine applications are capable of wiping out the zooplankton in natural wetland systems, causing surface dwelling algae to grow rapidly hence preventing sunlight from reaching the bottom-dwelling algae, which tadpoles eat. Instead, your studies were conducted in small, confined cattle tanks http://www.chronicle.pitt.edu/?p=660 Monsanto has previously pointed out that It is not unusual for studies conducted in artificial systems to demonstrate greater toxicity than studies conducted under actual environmental conditions. A detailed rebuttal response from Monsanto to your Roundup herbicide work can be found on Monsanto's website:http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=8800 Leopard and wood frogs naturally range across North America, including Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. Once plentiful, leopard frogs have declined in recent years. Ironically, leopard frogs are still very abundant in regions of the USA where Roundup herbicide and insecticide use has been very high such as around the Roundup Ready soybean and corn monocultures that cover ~70% of the land mass of southern Minnesota and Iowa: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/frogb.jpg Example: Just two months ago during an evening thunderstorm I saw hundreds of leopard frogs hopping across the farm roads in southern Minnesota (Klossner, Minnesota) and hundreds of them ended up being smashed by cars. I've experienced the same phenomenon along the farm roads of Iowa many times. The chemical giants like Monsanto and Dupont could make a documentary film for the public and academic community substantiating this abundance if they wanted to. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Insecticide Decimates Tadpole Populations Through the Food Chain
Amartya Saha wrote: what the study showed is that sublethal doses of malathion can negatively affect leopard frog tadpoles by affecting their food chain. Sublethal to leopard frogs, but lethal to zooplankton. Its a matter of insecticide/weedicide CONCENTRATIONS. Yes, it can be that in the field, such concentrations are often lower than in the U Pitt tank study. However there can be (and will be) instances where this concentration may be reached or even exceeded, depending on topography/drainage, rainfall and a host of other factors. Dr. Relyea's tank study was not representative of actual field conditions, hence it was not capable of demonstrating whether or not the formulation and dosage of Malathion routinely used in ground or aerial applications for mosquito control (~ 0.5 - 4 ounces per acre) leaves behind residues on natural tadpole habitats (e.g. ponds and puddles) that are seriously lethal to the zooplankton upon which the tadpoles feed. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Malformed Frogs: The Collapse of Aquatic Ecosystems - By Michael Lannoo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 1995 discovery of malformed frogs in a Minnesota wetland is one of a few singular events in the history of environmental awareness that has forever changed our views regarding the plight of global biodiversity. Malformed Frogs our focus should be on finding practical solutions, a key component of which will be controlling chemical, nutrient, and pesticide runoff into wetlands. Ironically, I've found undeformed frogs are abundant in Minnesota along the margins of it's vast monocultures of herbicide tolerant GMO corn and soybeans http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/frogb.jpg Of course, most school kids who lives on farms in Minnesota knows this too. But do big city biology students and professors? Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
Malcolm McCallum wrote: I don't know where we are in this conversation now, but MY 1983 escort station wagon got 30-40 mi/gal on average with up to 50 mi/gal on the highway. that wasn't a rating, that was what it actually got. So, why is it that all the new cars (including the hybrids) do so puke poor on mileage In 1983 many members of the general public, including the ecologists and eco-activists, were willing a drive a vehicle like your 2,500 pound 1983 Ford Escort wagon that had a 68 horsepower 1.6 liter engine, took 14 seconds to accelerate to 0 - 60 MPH, had a manual transmission, two wheel drive, small 13 inch wheels on narrow tread tires for minimal rolling resistance, and no weighty structural reinfocements to meet tough front, rear, side and rollover crash safety standards. By the 2000's car makers had learned how to make a 1.6 liter engine put out 110 horsepower. So that means to make a 68 horsepower engine like your 1983 Escort had, car makers had the option of decreasing the engine displacement down to 1.0 liters to gain a sizable 25% improvment in fuel economy. But the car makers didn't do that because the general public, including the ecologists and eco-activists, desired increasingly more powerful engines more than they desired improved fuel economy. So the car makers did not decrease engine displacement. Thus we have a situation today where the economy cars are about 60% more powerful than they were in the 1980's, but fuel economy is no better mostly because engine displacement is the same (or larger). Likewise the American public today, including the ecologists and eco-activists, prefer: a) an automatic transmission over a manual even though the latter optimizes fuel economy and low carbon emissions. b) four wheel drive or all wheel drive over two wheel drive even though the atter optimizes fuel economy and low carbon emissions. c) big wheels and wide tread tires over small wheels and narrow tread tires even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions and conserves steel and rubber. d) weighty structural reinfocements to meet tough front, rear, side and rollover crash safety standards instead of no reinforcments even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions. e) 65-75 MPH speed limits instead of 55 MPH speed limits even though the latter optimizes fuel economy, low carbon emissions. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
In Cuba it's routine to see 40-60 year old cars on the road. Cuban's realize a car's body and frame can last indefinately and all the drivetrain and suspension componets can be replaced as they wear out. Modern components such as engines with emission controls can also be installed in these old vehicles. But I don't believe the ecologists and environmental activists in the first world countries could stomach driving 30 year old, let alone 50 year old vehicles for a variety of comfort and convenience reasons such as: they can't accelerate and corner fast, they take some muscle to steer and brake (no power steering or power brakes) must be manually shifted, don't have air bags, crash protection beams in the doors and so forth. Practical example: 30-40 years ago the standard workhorse field vehicle for an ecologist was a Volkswagen Bus with a 4 cylinder engine, manual transmission, no air conditioning, marginal high speed cornering capability and took 25 seconds to accelerate from 0 - 60 MPH. Despite it's substantial size and interior roominess, a VW Bus weighed only 3000 pounds because it wasn't burdened with all the comfort, convenience and safety features todays ecologists and activists demand such as a powerful engine, all wheel drive, automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning, heavy steel beams in the doors and dashboard for crash protection, and so forth. Now ask yourself: would today's ecologists and activists in the first world countries be enthusiastically willing to buy old VW Buses instead of heavy and powerful Subaru's 4Runners and Jeeps to help save the planet if the VW's were still available? I think Exxon executives know the answer to that question and that's why Exxon predicts the world demand for petroleum and associated carbon emissions will continue to increase for the next 30 years. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] McDonough - I don't think so
David Bryant wrote: I'm not sure of your point here or where you get your data. A 72 VW micro-bus got around 20 mpg (less than a Subaru Forester, replete with airbags, crumple zones, and cup holders) and was one of the most dangerous vehicles on the road. OK, I'll try outlining another example. If you took a 3,300 pound 2007 Subaru Forester and installed a 80 HP 4 cyl engine in place of it's 171 HP engine, a manual transmission in place of it's automatic, and front wheel drive in place of all wheel drive, it's weight would drop to about 2,800 pounds and it's highway fuel economy would climb to about 37 MPG from 26 MPG. Then strip away the air bags and crash protection structural reinforcements and weight declines to 2500 lbs and fuel economy would rise to about 40 MPG. Along with this large (54%) increase in fuel economy there would be a corresponding large (54%) reduction in carbon emissions. At this point you'd have a vehicle with the same genera level of power, comfort, convenience and safety features as a early 1980's era vehicle and a vehicle like early 80's era ecologists and activists in the USA were willing to drive, but not present day ecologists. In addition, early 80's ecologists embraced the national 55 MPH speed limit, which further boosted highway fuel economy 15%. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, CA
Re: climate change case studies
Lucas Moyer-Horner wrote: Anita, Below are two excellent case studies that are near and dear to my heart. As far as i know, this is the first evidence of a small-medium sized mammal being extirpated by rising temperatures. Beever, E.A., Brussard, P.F. and Berger, J. 2003. Patterns of apparent extirpation among isolated populations of pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin. Journal of Mammalogy 84(1):37-54 Grayson, D.K. 2005. A brief history of Great Basin Pikas. Journal of biogeography 32:2103-2111. Lucas, according to this article: http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=15849 In the early 1990s, E.A Beever revisited 25 Great Basin pika populations recorded by Eugene Raymond Hall and others about half a century earlier and found six of the 25 populations had completely disappeared. The 25 pika populations that were monitored were located primarily within Nevada: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/pikaa.jpg Now lets look at how much temperatures rose in Nevada between 1920 and 1993 using National Climate Center Data http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html Here is the winter (Dec-Feb) temperature graph for Nevada the period 1920-1993: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/pikab.jpg A very slight warming trend is apparent Here is the summer (June-August) temperature graph for Nevada for the period 1920-1993: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/pikad.jpg A slight cooling trend is apparent. Here is the overall annual temperature graph for Nevada for the period 1920-1993: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/pikac.jpg A very slight cooling trend is apparent. Lucas, I am now wondering why you and other scientists think the Great Basin pika is the first evidence of a small-medium sized mammal being extirpated by rising temperatures. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: climate change case studies
Lucas Moyer-Horner wrote: Anita, Below are two excellent case studies that are near and dear to my heart. As far as i know, this is the first evidence of a small-medium sized mammal being extirpated by rising temperatures. Beever, E.A., Brussard, P.F. and Berger, J. 2003. Patterns of apparent extirpation among isolated populations of pikas (Ochotona princeps) in the Great Basin. Journal of Mammalogy 84(1):37-54 Grayson, D.K. 2005. A brief history of Great Basin Pikas. Journal of biogeography 32:2103-2111. Lucas, according to this article: http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=15849 In the early 1990s, E.A Beever revisited 25 Great Basin pika populations recorded by Eugene Raymond Hall and others about half a century earlier and found six of the 25 populations had completely disappeared. The 25 pika populations that were monitored were located primarily within Nevada: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/pikaa.jpg Now lets look at how much temperatures rose in Nevada between 1920 and 1993 using National Climate Center Data http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html Here is the winter (Dec-Feb) temperature graph for Nevada the period 1920-1993: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/pikab.jpg A very slight warming trend is apparent Here is the summer (June-August) temperature graph for Nevada for the period 1920-1993: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/pikad.jpg A slight cooling trend is apparent. Here is the overall annual temperature graph for Nevada for the period 1920-1993: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/pikac.jpg A very slight cooling trend is apparent. Lucas, I am now wondering why you and other scientists think the Great Basin pika is the first evidence of a small-medium sized mammal being extirpated by rising temperatures. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Climate change funding
Malcolm Mccallum wrote: if PHDs' activities were primarily profit driven, then they would be found in corporations paying much better than the low pay (often less than 45K/yr) found at most universities upon graduation. Despite this, graduates in environmentally relevant fields seek academic posts viewed as most prestigious. These facts seem to fly in the face of the entire idea that scientific opinions are in some way driven by the availability of funds. Malcolm, I'll try to explain why I think Global Warming has been a financial windfall issue for ecologists in the sense that it has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding to create / maintain thousands of new environmental science related jobs. In recent decades our universities have been cranking out thousands of new graduates in the environmental science related fields. Most of these graduates, like you said, seek academic posts. Academic posts = jobs in our government owned institutions (e.g. universities) agencies (EPA, NOAA, USFWS, etc). What determines the number of available environmental science related jobs in our government institutions agencies? Answer: the availability of funds. What inspired Congress and foundations to award all this new funding in recent decades? Answer: a consensus of scientific opinion that certain emerging environmental issues (e.g. ozone depletion, global warming, etc) must be immediately addressed (via funding researchers who work at the government institutions agencies) to avert serious environmental consequences. In this way, it appears to me that scientific opinions are substantially influenced by the availability of funds. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Heads up: The new Global Warming Denial Front
Kelly Decker wrote: The George C. Marshall Institute has launched a new PR campaign to suggest that scientists are biased in their findings of global climate change due to the fact that there is grant monies to study global climate change. It's pure talking points for those who do not want to see the world make headway against greenhouse gas emissions. Kelly, on Oct. 18 Maiken Winter wrote: Here is a call for scientists to address congress about funding research on how to best protect species in the face of climate change. it is necessary but not sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. In other words, scientists are not simply interested in seeing federal money spent on direct and immediate solutions to greenhouse gas pollution. They are seeking federal funding to study, monitor and manage species that might be substantially affected by climate change - funding that could create or enhance the professional careers of many hundreds, perhaps thousands of them. So naturally a situation like this raises suspicions. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Scientists versus activists
Wil Burns wrote: 1. If you want to cash in on climate change, you'd actually be a skeptic. There's way too many people competing for university and foundation grants if you support this radical thesis. By contrast, if you want to be a skeptic, there's an array of corporate-fronted foundations that will bestow cash on you, so your thesis is internally illogical; I agree many scientists today - probably thousands - are competing for many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of newly available climate change grant money. And that's my point - that climate change has been a recent a financial windfall for the catastrophic man-made global warming camp of scientists. Here are just are few of many available examples of the kind of money being allocated: HSBC To Donate $100 Million For Climate Research http://tinyurl.com/37n9kj $9 million to fund climate research http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2005/2/16/9MillionToFundClimateResearch By contrast, there are only a relatively small numbers of scientists who make their living (via corporate-fronted foundations) promoting the idea that the causes of global warming are not mostly man made or that nothing can be done that will effectively delay warming by more than a few years. But to get back to Maiken Winter's original questions: How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible resistance among scientists to get active? I would suggest Maiken take a look at this US Senate Committee Minority page website http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw that provides detailed information on the views of 12 prominent scientists who used to be members of the catastrophic man-made global warming camp and are now skeptics. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Scientists versus activists
Val Smith wrote: The term windfall has built-in negative connotations that could potentially be taken to imply that some of us are out there waiting to exploit this real-world problem, and thus are indulging in some kind of ecoprostitution. I take very strong issue with such an assertion, if that was the intent. Here is what some climate scientists themselves have say: http://tinyurl.com/27eozg David Legates, Delaware state climatologist: There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey. Reid Bryson: If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.' Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep your mouth shut. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Scientists versus activists
Maiken Winter wrote: How much more evidence do we need? Why is there such an incredible resistance among scientists to get active? Because scientists are in business to perform research and publish or they will perish. In decades past, scientists who wrote grant proposals that showed how their proposed research was relevant to the envrionmental crisis fad of the time (e.g. impact of industrial and agricultural chemical pollutants on the environment, impact of GMO foods, etc) were more likely to get funded. In recent years, scientists who wrote grant proposals that showed how their proposed research was relevant to the current crisis fad (climate change) were more likely to get funded. When the grant getting advantage of linking proposed research to climate change wears off it, scientists will come up with a novel new crisis that helps keep the grant money rolling in. In 5-10 years the everyday discussions on ECOLOG-L will likely be about a new crisis and climate change will no longer be a dominant concern anymore just like concern over ozone holes, acid rain and GMO foods has faded away. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Mosquito control, DDT etc. - boundaries and scales
Ashwani Vasishth wrote: It seems to me people that propagate the use of DDTgenuinely fail to see the long-term consequences of a renewed use. Maybe the people that propagate the use of DDT (indoors to kill repel mosquitoes) understand and appreciate the fact that the long term consquences (e.g. avian egg shell thinning) of DDT's extensive outdoor usage in the 50's 60's wouldn't have occurred if the chemical had been used solely indoors during those years, hence future indoor usage doesn't pose a serious problem either. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Mosquito control, DDT etc. - boundaries and scales
Ashwani Vasishth wrote: It seems to me people that propagate the use of DDTgenuinely fail to see the long-term consequences of a renewed use. Maybe the people that propagate the use of DDT (indoors to kill repel mosquitoes) understand and appreciate the fact that the long term consquences (e.g. avian egg shell thinning) of DDT's extensive outdoor usage in the 50's 60's wouldn't have occurred if the chemical had been used solely indoors during those years, hence future indoor usage doesn't pose a serious problem either. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Mosquito control, DDT etc. - boundaries and scales
Yes, Boundaries Scales, but also Impact Tolerance Standards. Ecologists cannot make a mathematically valid case that using a coffe cup size amount of DDT on the inside surfaces of homes in malaria prone countries every 6-12 months could ever have more than a negligible adverse impact on the health of the humans and wildlife living outside of the homes. But by advocating a zero adverse impact standard, some affluent ecologists and eco-activists from malaria free countries can justify genocidal policies against poorer countries (deny them access to life saving DDT). Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Overshoot, Homo colossus, detrivore ecosystem, dirty commies, pestilence, nuclear meltdown etc., ad infinitum.
Tom Schweich wrote: I've given up dying over and over again, and plan to live a little in my few remaining years. I'm old enough to remember the predictions scientists were making on the first Earth Day in 1970 (see below). I was 17 at the time and became depressed about my future since the world's ecosystems were soon going to collapse. A psychologist told me the scientists were simply exaggerating to generate research grants. I told the psychologist scientists don't lie and stormed out of his office. Ecologist Kenneth E.F. Watt on global cooling: If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter : Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditionsBy the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine Washington University biologist Barry Commoner: We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation, Harvard biologist George Wald: Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. Stanford University Ecologist Paul Ehrlich: In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
William Silvert wrote: Even if we can somehow persuade politicians to stop promoting growth Could even university faculty members and administrators somehow be pursuaded not to aggressively seek six figure incomes and the material affluence that kind of money can buy? http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/142191.html California State University professors throughout the state -- overwhelmingly authorized a strike over salaries, faculty leaders said. http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5493879?source=rss Instead of helping students get an education, said SJSU occupational therapy professor Elizabeth Cara, the administration caters to elite executives who get huge pay raises and golden parachutes. The trustees just gave the chancellor a raise. He's paid nearly $400,000 a year, and still the trustees won't pay professors a decent salary. There's something wrong with this picture, and it's time for the faculty to take a stand. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Exxon on renewable energy
http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/12/news/economy/exxon_outlook/index.htm The world's largest energy company says demand for fossil fuels will soar; sees little hope for corn-based ethanol. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- ExxonMobil delivered its annual long term energy forecast Tuesday, saying that it expects the world will use 60% more energy in 2030 than in did in 2000. But despite this spike in demand, the oil giant does not expect to see any increase in the use of renewable energy sources from 2006 levels. Exxon also said the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is expected to soar as a result, but that it would be far cheaper to limit carbon output by regulating power plants instead of vehicles. Despite supply concerns, the company added that it foresees few problems bringing more oil and gas to market, and that the current price of oil is actually higher than it needs to be to bring oil to market. In a presentation to analysts, Jaime Spellings said thatAs the global economy grows, the demand for energy grows, he said. But the curve is flattening. Developing and adapting energy-efficient technology is crucial. Spellings singled out the car as one area ripe for more conservation technology, noting that recent advances in fuel economy had been largely offset by gains in vehicle weight. He said the world would use fossil fuels to meet about 80 percent of its total energy demand in 2030, about the same proportion as today.Hydro and nuclear power currently make up most of the remaining 20 percent. Spellings said renewable energy, while growing rapidly, will continue to provide just several percent of the world's total energy needs by 2030. He referred to slides saying that in 2005 it took 13 percent of the country's corn production to make the ethanol that accounted for just 2 percent of the country's gasoline demand. He also said that ethanol's lower energy yield makes it generally more expensive than gasoline, even with oil at $60 a barrel. Spellings said even cellulosic ethanol or ethanol made from sugar cane could not compete with gasoline on a cost basis. This provides some perspective on ethanol's prospects as an alternative fuel, he said. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: ENERGY Sustainability Biofuels REQUIRED READING FOR EVERY ECOLOGIST? Re: George Monbiot on Biofuels
Cara Lin Bridgman wrote: Here's the link to a recent article by George Monbiot on Biofuels. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/27/109/ Ironically, eight years ago the commondreams.org newscenter ran an article that favored, rather than opposed, federal funding of research and development on biofuels such as ethanol: http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/may99/052799g.htm MAY 27, 1999 Union of Concerned Scientists Steve Clemmer, 617-547-5552 Energy Crops Need Boost from Congress Biomass Bill Could Spur Rural Development, Clean Air, Energy Diversity Steve Clemmer, senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, voiced his support for the National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999 (S. 935) before the US Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday. It costs about one-third as much to produce a gallon of ethanol today as it did in 1980, Clemmer said. Federal research and development will be a key driver in continuing to lower the cost and improve the performance of biomass technologies. By increasing our reliance on domestic biomass and other renewable energy resources, a large portion of the $60 billion that flows out of the United States each year to purchase imported oil could remain in the economy, providing jobs for Americans and reducing US dependence on unstable foreign fuel imports. Biomass has the technical potential to supply up to half of the nation's electricity and up to two-thirds of the nation's motor fuel needs without irrigation and without competing with food crops. And increased biomass use would reduce US global warming gases and other pollution while lowering the cost of complying with environmental regulations. Electricity generation and automobiles are responsible for two-thirds of the US contribution to global warming, Clemmer said. In contrast, energy crops produce virtually zero global warming gases. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: ethanol competiing directly with world food supply / driving up prices
stan moore wrote: How much additional wildland will be put into grain production, at the cost of habitat for wild flora and fauna? How many forests will be cut down? How sustainable can this transition be? In the upper Midwest USA, according to some agricultural economists at Iowa State University, the most likely source of new corn acreage will come from shifts in crop rotation from soybeans to corn. http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_06/article2.aspx http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/fall_06/article3.aspx Example: instead of a traditional corn/soybean/corn/ annual crop rotation schedule, Midwestern farmers could implement a corn/corn/ soybean rotation schedule. I've seen evidence of this already happening : 2006 photo of corn fields on both sides of a farm road in southwestern Minnesota: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/mori06.jpg 2005 photo of the same exact farm road where you can see (left side of photo) corn was growing on the same piece of ground where it had been growing in 2006: http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/mor05.jpg Another source of additional corn could come from the continually increasing yields that GMO biotech corn has been generating (e.g Roundup Ready Bt corn http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/rr.jpg). Here's a graph of Iowa corn yields per planted acre over the 1980 to 2005 crop years and you can see how yields rose especially fast after the introduction of GMO crops in 1996 http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/corngra.jpg Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Consumer Choice the Environment
Amartya Saha wrote: And we cannot go back to the pre-industrial age. Can we go back even 30 years? 30 years ago. 1. We had a National 55 MPH speed limit to minimize gasoline consumption. Today's ecologists and activists are unwlling to drive that slow to instantly reduce gasoline consumption by 20% 2. We bought new homes that were around 1,200 square feet in size. Today's ecologists and activists routinely choose homes that 50-100% bigger than that. 3. We drove compact 4 cylinder cars or compact station wagons that were about 2,300 lbs in weight, had manual transmissions for optimal fuel economy and got 30-35 MPG. Today's ecologists and activists want a 3,200 lb all wheel drive Subaru Forester type SUV vehicle that gets 25 MPG. 4. We drove compact 4 cylinder cars that had 70-90 horsepower engines that took 15 seconds to go from 0 - 60 MPH. Today's ecologists and activists want at least a 150 horsepower car that can do 0-60 MPH in 10 seconds even though engines that powerful reduce fuel economy by 10-20% 5. We drove compact 4 cylinder cars that had skinny, but fuel economy maximizing P155/80R13 tires. Today's ecologists and activists want cars with much wider wheels and tires that provide much better high speed cornering capability at the expense of fuel economy. 6. We drove compact 4 cylinder cars that were not burdened with hundreds of pounds of crash protection, stability control and traction equipement. Today's ecologists and activists are unwlling to buy a new car without that equipment even though the weight of the equipment increases fuel consumption by 10%. 7. We were satisfied with annual incomes in the $12,000 - $24,000 a year range even though it meant we could only afford modest sized homes and cars. Todays ecologists and activists are unwilling to live that austerely and want pay, benefits and material possessions that are comparable to business people. Paul Cherubini
Re: Carbon offsetting
I don't believe I've heard anyone mention nuclear energy in the carbon offsetting discussion. The other day on another forum Professor Bruce Walsh of the University of Arizona offered this insight: Is global warming a serious enough of a problem for us to go nuclear? Remember, the folks that shut down new nuclear power plant constructions made a major contribution to increased greenhouse gases. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
How about serious energy conservation beginning today? We almost never hear professional ecologists or activist organizations (e.g. Union of Concerned Scientists) proposing immediately lifestyle sacrifices to set an example for the rest of society. Very simple, low tech sacrifices. What would it take, for example, to get todays ecologists and activists out of there 3,300 pound, 25 miles per gallon Subaru Forester SUV's and back into the 2,500 pound, 34 miles per gallon Toyota Tercel Station Wagon type vehicles they drove 20 years ago? I frankly don't think todays ecologists and activists are willing to drive a Tercel like vehicle anymore because: 1) They don't want to drive a car that doesn't have 300 lbs worth of air bags and structural reinforcements to aid crashworthiness. 2) They don't want to drive a car that has fuel economy optimizing narrow wheels and tires like the Tercel did. 3) They don't want to drive a car that has a fuel economy optimizing 70 horsepower engine that takes 15 seconds to accelerate to 60 MPH like the Tercel did. 4) They don't want to drive a a car that has a 5-speed manual transmission like the Tercel did. 5). They don't even want to see the national 55 miles per hour speed limit reinstated. Likewise, I don't think todays professional ecologists (in the USA) and activists are willing to live in 900-1,400 square foot homes like they did 20 years ago. Instead, it's typical nowadays to see them purchasing 1,600 - 2,200 square foot homes just like other people in society that have household incomes in the $60,000 - $120,000 per year range. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: If not Ethanol, what then?
René_Borgella wrote: I must be in a different universe, as this is exactly what 'activist' organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests and proposes; see for yourself: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/ Prof. Borgella, the UCS website proposes building safer, cleaner and more energy efficient big, powerful, SUV's and big homes and achieving those goals via technology: e.g. UCS website says: technologies can be used to offer consumers an SUV that is safer, cleaner, and more cost effective, WHILE RETAINING THE SIZE AND PERFORMANCE SUV drivers have today. I cannot find anything on the UCS website that suggests professional scientists and environmental activists should be willing to SACRIFICE anything; e.g. SACRIFICE present day standards of living and return to the standards of the 70's and 80's, i.e. be willing to: a) live in downsized homes (900 - 1,500 square feet instead of 1,600 - 2,200 square feet). b) drive downsized vehicles with downsized engines that are much less powerful than today's vehicles. c) drive vehicles without many hundreds of pounds worth of gasoline wasting add on safety, comfort and convenience related eqipment (airbags, structural reinforcements,anti-lock brakes, electronic vehicle stability controls, automatic transmissions, all wheel drive, road hugging wide wheel tires and so forth.) d) sacrifice the present day 65-75 MPH speed limits and return to the 55 MPH national speed limit of the late 70's and 80's. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: NSTA's response to OpEd
I think the public would take pleas from the academic community for climate change action more seriously if the pleas didn't constantly involve pleas for money and research, but instead involved pleas for energy conservation measures that would slightly inconvenience the academics as well as the general public. Example: Action measures like reinstating the national 55 mph speed limit in order to simply and immediately cut gasoline consumption and associated tailpipe / greenhouse gas emissions by 20-25% (as compared to a 70 MPH speed limit). I suggested this action measure several months ago and even ExxonMobil appears to support it http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/4af/exxon.jpg but relatively few people on this professional ecology listserv were enthusiastically in favor of it. Paul Cherubini
Re: Forbes calling for renewed use of DDT to fight malaria
On July 21 Patrick Foley wrote: As for Sacramento-Yolo West Nile spraying [in August 2005]: The Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito Abatement District carefully avoided a public discussion of their spraying in Davis, the home of UCDavis, until after their very dubious spraying strategy was already decided. When they did attempt to conduct a no-public-discussion informational meeting to a room full of scientists, they were met with a good deal of scorn. Very little serious epidemiological work has gone into the spraying plans. Yet after listening to the arguments of the anti-spray segment of the academic community at UC Davis for the past year, the Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito Abatement District has still decided in favor of aerially spraying the city of Davis, including the UC Davis campus, this summer. In fact, a Davis newspaper announced today that the aerial spraying of Davis will take place later this week: http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2006/07/31/news/153new1.txt On Thursday and Friday nights, airplanes will spray pesticide over Davis and Woodland in an effort to slow the spread of West Nile virus. The Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, working with UC Davis, will trap for mosquitoes before and after spraying. Last year in Sacramento County, spraying was successful in killing better than 75 percent of the mosquito population. The chemical insecticide contains piperonyl butoxide. According to http://www.stopwestnilesprayingnow.org/Risk.htm piperonyl butoxide has been shown to induce DNA damage in several different assays for genotoxicity and also to function as an endocrine disruptor. Evidently the Sacramento-Yolo governement public health authorities has not found the anti-spray arguments of the academic community very compelling. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: Wall Street Journal op-ed on An Inconvenient Truth
My point, like Lintzen's, is that another 30+ year period of stable or declining global temperatures, like we experienced between 1939-1972, http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/ustemp.jpg might be just around the corner. I don't see anything on the UCS website that explains why it's inconceivable that a decades long period of stable or declining global temperatures might be just around the corner. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: What's the best energy source?
Rob Harrison wrote: In regard to portable fuel for cars, this country does use some biomass to produce alcohol and, increasingly, biodiesel for transportation. These need to receive the kinds of research and tax support that petroleum does. I was elated to live in Brazil for a year, purchase a Ford that ran on pure ethanol, and be able to buy fuel for it at any station. Yes, and in the upper Midwest USA it is fairly common to see corn fields marked with signs like this one: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/ethb.jpg and billboard advertizements like this one: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/etha.jpg Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif.
Re: What's the best energy source?
I've also been seeing more and more of these http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/mastertech/ethc.jpg among the corn / soybean fields of the upper Midwest: The blades turn relatively slowly so I doubt they have much impact on wildlife. Paul Cherubini
