There is, today, a political battle in progress that will determine the future of the United States. The war is between those who think that it is important for national leaders to make decisions based upon solid science, science that has been hammered out by SCIENTISTS who engage in the self-correcting process known as "science," and those who think that their ideas, their wants ("druthers"), and the desires of funding groups will yield the "facts" they need to promote their point of view. This is not a new battle, but one that has been on-going for many years.
Government leaders really first became convinced that they needed good hard scientific advice during the depression. As the nation began to take increasing notice of the machinations of the axis powers (to be), it became obvious to President Roosevelt that he needed help. So he created a wartime Office of Scientific Research and Development under Vannevar Bush (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush for a brief biography). Under President Eisenhower, the President's Science Advisory Committee, under MIT president James Killian gave the President needed advice. That office lasted until killed by newly sworn-in President Richard Nixon. Since then, presidents have made do with a series of more or less effective advisory groups, often on an ad hoc basis.
In 1972, Congress, feeling the need to legislate with effective scientific information created the Office of Technology Assessment ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Technology_Assessment for a brief overview of that office). It came under severe criticism from Republicans when it published a paper, by physicist Ashton Carter, that warned that the Reagan era Star Wars program would not protect America. A series of papers confirming that came under severe Republican criticism. The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, began to increase its attacks on OTA. When Newt Gingrich and his colleagues came to power in 1994, they suceeded in de-funding (killing) OTA. Congress has since had no internal organ to assess science or technology, despite calls for its re-creation. Today, political leaders hold hearing and invite "science experts" who agree with the hearing chairperson, hardly a path to unbiased scientific knowledge or advice.
In the meantime, attacks on scientific consenses continue, especially by far right-wing politicians. In a 2005 book, "The Republican War on Science," by Chris Mooney, the author documents dozens of attacks on science over the last thirty years. His book ends in 2005, when Mooney felt that the attacks couldn't get worse than they were then. That was before the 2012 Presidential campaign began in late 2010 and the attacks did, indeed, get worse. Today the attacks are broad-based and cover the gamut of the environment, energy, basic biology (of all things), climatology, medicine and other fields.
When this author worked in Naval Intelligence (for a bit less than two years), he read a book that cautioned that absolute knowledge of an enemy's intentions can never be had - for the dictator might change his mind after he leaves the final meeting. Likewise, we cannot know, for certain, that the current crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls really believe what they are saying. Pandering to the crowd is an old and acceptable feature of political life (here, as elsewhere). If one had to venture a guess, it would be that 25% or less of the people in a political rally audience, know much about science. Oh, they can twitter their minds out, make phone calls at 75 mph, but they have no clue how any of that magic actually happens. Their expectation is probably that it will always get better and better. So, in that environment, office seekers can tell the crowd whatever makes the crowd louder and more supportive. Do Perry, Bachmann, et al, really believe that creationism trumps evolution, that climate change is "just a normal thing and will get better no matter what WE do," that there will ALWAYS be more oil to suck out of the earth, or that medicine doen't need to be based on modern biological concepts to improve? If they do believe it, is it possible that they, with almost no scientific knowledge, could they be right? What would their tomorrow look like? If they don't believe it, what on earth do they believe, except that they somehow have the right to high political office and the power and wealth that would bring to them. Is that it? What kind of tomorrow is that?
We can't know the answer to any of that. And not knowing is really, really scary.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Right Wing Truth
The right wing in our country seems to have its own set of truths. These "truths" have nothing to do with facts. They have everything to do with a warped vision of some sort of make-believe reality that the right wing has made up. They seem to have a set of goals which, they believe, would take America back to the "good old days" that they have imagined. If they could just put actions in place, they think, to take the country back from the "tax and spend" liberals, all would be well. What would such a place be like? We have a couple of examples - incomplete as of yet, but heading in that direction. Let's look at one example.
In Texas, we have the specter of a de-regulated business environment, an inadequately insured work force, poor to nearly nonexistent decent educational opportunities for youth and/or adult learners, and an economy that is beginning to resemble that of the late 19th Century, when workers were poorly paid, unorganized, unprotected, and generally left to the whims of the owner-management classes. Texas is now at the bottom of the heap, along with Mississippi, for the highest percentage of jobs at a minimum wage level. It leads the nation "in the percentage of children who lack medical insurance," according to an editorial in the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson.
The number of young people lacking high school diplomas is over 12% and slated to reach 30% within 20 years - a damning statistic that condemns the youth of Texas to a life of ignorance and prejudice. Yet the current government has slashed educational funding by $4 billion. The governor's response is to call for teaching Bible Creation instead of modern biology. If they do that, students in Texas might as well never apply to go elsewhere to school, since Texas will be on an educational level with the worst third-world nations.
The current governor, Gov. Rick Perry, is running for President and stands a decent chance of becoming the Republican nominee. He advocates doing away with virtually all regulation and permitting the individual states to do things how ever they want to - sort of a throw-back to those wonderful days of 1781 - 1792, when the United States was a solid failure until a revised Constitution could be put into effect that gave much more power to the collective nation.
Perry further states his belief that scientists who hold the climate change is upon us and we are to blame are just greedy people looking to continue getting grant money for their favorite projects - which are all filled with lies anyway. It beggars belief that a man as scientifically ignorant as Perry obviously is makes supposedly authoritative statements about science. If Perry's ideas about science become the law of the educational world, human progress in this country would regress to the dark days of pre-medical science, pre-modern physics, pre-modern chemistry, and pre-modern biology. If Texans really want to be that ignorant, we should, of course, let them. But, Lord, don't let them across the border into the modern world!
In the ancient days, before modern educational institutions arose, the country held a debate over how much education people should receive. The answer, of course, was as much as they want or can handle. There was another side, though, that said education above the absolute minimum needed for manual labor or simple machine jobs, should be denied the "working classes" since too much education might make them want a better life, more leisure time, more "stuff" (which meant more money). An underlying motive behind all of this right wing rhetoric is to return the nation to that place - where the super-rich have 99% of the wealth, and the other 99% of us can fight over the 1% by competing for ever-lower paying jobs. And when companies want to increase productivity, they can squeeze the workers until they quit, then hire new drones at even lower wages.
Well, I'm an old man, now and I've had what little time in the sun I will ever have. But I love this country enough to have offered to die for it and I'll be damned if I'll let the right wing destroy the last, best hope for all of humanity. 'nuff said for one night.
In Texas, we have the specter of a de-regulated business environment, an inadequately insured work force, poor to nearly nonexistent decent educational opportunities for youth and/or adult learners, and an economy that is beginning to resemble that of the late 19th Century, when workers were poorly paid, unorganized, unprotected, and generally left to the whims of the owner-management classes. Texas is now at the bottom of the heap, along with Mississippi, for the highest percentage of jobs at a minimum wage level. It leads the nation "in the percentage of children who lack medical insurance," according to an editorial in the Washington Post by Harold Meyerson.
The number of young people lacking high school diplomas is over 12% and slated to reach 30% within 20 years - a damning statistic that condemns the youth of Texas to a life of ignorance and prejudice. Yet the current government has slashed educational funding by $4 billion. The governor's response is to call for teaching Bible Creation instead of modern biology. If they do that, students in Texas might as well never apply to go elsewhere to school, since Texas will be on an educational level with the worst third-world nations.
The current governor, Gov. Rick Perry, is running for President and stands a decent chance of becoming the Republican nominee. He advocates doing away with virtually all regulation and permitting the individual states to do things how ever they want to - sort of a throw-back to those wonderful days of 1781 - 1792, when the United States was a solid failure until a revised Constitution could be put into effect that gave much more power to the collective nation.
Perry further states his belief that scientists who hold the climate change is upon us and we are to blame are just greedy people looking to continue getting grant money for their favorite projects - which are all filled with lies anyway. It beggars belief that a man as scientifically ignorant as Perry obviously is makes supposedly authoritative statements about science. If Perry's ideas about science become the law of the educational world, human progress in this country would regress to the dark days of pre-medical science, pre-modern physics, pre-modern chemistry, and pre-modern biology. If Texans really want to be that ignorant, we should, of course, let them. But, Lord, don't let them across the border into the modern world!
In the ancient days, before modern educational institutions arose, the country held a debate over how much education people should receive. The answer, of course, was as much as they want or can handle. There was another side, though, that said education above the absolute minimum needed for manual labor or simple machine jobs, should be denied the "working classes" since too much education might make them want a better life, more leisure time, more "stuff" (which meant more money). An underlying motive behind all of this right wing rhetoric is to return the nation to that place - where the super-rich have 99% of the wealth, and the other 99% of us can fight over the 1% by competing for ever-lower paying jobs. And when companies want to increase productivity, they can squeeze the workers until they quit, then hire new drones at even lower wages.
Well, I'm an old man, now and I've had what little time in the sun I will ever have. But I love this country enough to have offered to die for it and I'll be damned if I'll let the right wing destroy the last, best hope for all of humanity. 'nuff said for one night.
Monday, August 1, 2011
The Past is Key to the Future
Copy of an article on Skeptical Science. Well written excerpt of a peer-reviewed article by these two emminent climate scientists.
===================================================================
Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
This a re-post of an article by James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
The past is the key to the future. Contrary to popular belief, climate models are not the principal basis for assessing human-made climate effects. Our most precise knowledge comes from Earth's paleoclimate, its ancient climate, and how it responded to past changes of climate forcings, including atmospheric composition. Our second essential source of information is provided by global observations today, especially satellite observations, which reveal how the climate system is responding to rapid human-made changes of atmospheric composition, especially atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Models help us interpret past and present climate changes, and, in so far as they succeed in simulating past changes, they provide a tool to help evaluate the impacts of alternative policies that affect climate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans lived in a rather different world during the last ice age, which peaked 20,000 years ago. An ice sheet covered Canada and parts of the United States, including Seattle, Minneapolis and New York City. The ice sheet, more than a mile thick on average, would have towered over today's tallest buildings. Glacial-interglacial climate oscillations were driven by climate forcings much smaller than the human-made forcing due to increasing atmospheric CO2 -- but those weak natural forcings had a long time to operate, which allowed slow climate feedbacks such as melting or growing ice sheets to come into play.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleoclimate data yield our best assessment of climate sensitivity, which is the eventual global temperature change in response to a specified climate forcing. A climate forcing is an imposed change of Earth's energy balance, as may be caused, for example, by a change of the sun's brightness or a human-made change of atmospheric CO2. For convenience scientists often consider a standard forcing, doubled atmospheric CO2, because that is a level of forcing that humans will impose this century if fossil fuel use continues unabated.
We show from paleoclimate data that the eventual global warming due to doubled CO2 will be about 3°C (5.4°F) when only so-called fast feedbacks have responded to the forcing. Fast feedbacks are changes of quantities such as atmospheric water vapor and clouds, which change as climate changes, thus amplifying or diminishing climate change. Fast feedbacks come into play as global temperature changes, so their full effect is delayed several centuries by the thermal inertia of the ocean, which slows full climate response. However, about half of the fast-feedback climate response is expected to occur within a few decades. Climate response time is one of the important 'details' that climate models help to elucidate.
Fig. 1. Global temperature relative to peak Holocene temperature, based on ocean cores.
We also show that slow feedbacks amplify the global response to a climate forcing. The principal slow feedback is the area of Earth covered by ice sheets. It is easy to see why this feedback amplifies the climate change, because reduction of ice sheet size due to warming exposes a darker surface, which absorbs more sunlight, thus causing more warming. However, it is difficult for us to say how long it will take ice sheets to respond to human-made climate forcing because there are no documented past changes of atmospheric CO2 nearly as rapid as the current human-made change.
Ice sheet response to climate change is a problem where satellite observations may help. Also ice sheets models, as they become more realistic and are tested against observed ice sheet changes, may aid our understanding. But first let us obtain broad guidance from climate changes in the 'recent' past: the Pliocene and Pleistocene, the past 5.3 million years.
Figure 1 shows global surface temperature for the past 5.3 million years as inferred from cores of ocean sediments taken all around the global ocean. The last 800,000 years are expanded in the lower half of the figure. Assumptions are required to estimate global surface temperature change from deep ocean changes, but we argue and present evidence that the ocean core record yields a better measure of global mean change than that provided by polar ice cores.
Civilization developed during the Holocene, the interglacial period of the past 10,000 years during which global temperature and sea level have been unusually stable. Figure 1 shows two prior interglacial periods that were warmer than the Holocene: the Eemian (about 130,000 years ago) and the Holsteinian (about 400,000 years ago). In both periods sea level reached heights at least 4-6 meters (13-20 feet) greater than today. In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.
The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international discussions, is not sufficient – it is a prescription for disaster. Assessment of the dangerous level of CO2, and the dangerous level of warming, is made difficult by the inertia of the climate system. The inertia, especially of the ocean and ice sheets, allows us to introduce powerful climate forcings such as atmospheric CO2 with only moderate initial response. But that inertia is not our friend – it means that we are building in changes for future generations that will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.
Fig. 2. Greenland (a) and Antarctic (b) ice mass changes deduced from gravity field measurements by Velicogna (2009) and best-fits with 5-year and 10-year mass loss doubling times.
One big uncertainty is how fast ice sheets can respond to warming. Our best assessment will probably be from precise measurements of changes in the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which can be monitored via measurements of Earth's gravitational field by satellites.
Figure 2 shows that both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing mass at significant rates, as much as a few hundred cubic kilometers per year. We suggest that mass loss from disintegrating ice sheets probably can be approximated better by exponential mass loss than by linear mass loss. If either ice sheet were to lose mass at a rate with doubling time of 10 years or less, multi-meter sea level rise would occur this century.
The available record (Figure 2) is too brief to provide an indication of the shape of future ice mass loss, but the data will become extremely useful as the record lengthens. Continuation of these satellite measurements should have high priority.
=============================================================
References
Hansen, J., M. Sato, 2011: Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change, Accepted for publication in "Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of the Century: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects: Proceedings of Milutin Milankovitch 130th Anniversary Symposium" (A. Berger, F. Mesinger, and D. Šijači, Eds.)
Velicogna, I., 2009: Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.
Posted by James Hansen on Tuesday, 26 July, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================================================
Earth's Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow
This a re-post of an article by James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato
The past is the key to the future. Contrary to popular belief, climate models are not the principal basis for assessing human-made climate effects. Our most precise knowledge comes from Earth's paleoclimate, its ancient climate, and how it responded to past changes of climate forcings, including atmospheric composition. Our second essential source of information is provided by global observations today, especially satellite observations, which reveal how the climate system is responding to rapid human-made changes of atmospheric composition, especially atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Models help us interpret past and present climate changes, and, in so far as they succeed in simulating past changes, they provide a tool to help evaluate the impacts of alternative policies that affect climate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans lived in a rather different world during the last ice age, which peaked 20,000 years ago. An ice sheet covered Canada and parts of the United States, including Seattle, Minneapolis and New York City. The ice sheet, more than a mile thick on average, would have towered over today's tallest buildings. Glacial-interglacial climate oscillations were driven by climate forcings much smaller than the human-made forcing due to increasing atmospheric CO2 -- but those weak natural forcings had a long time to operate, which allowed slow climate feedbacks such as melting or growing ice sheets to come into play.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paleoclimate data yield our best assessment of climate sensitivity, which is the eventual global temperature change in response to a specified climate forcing. A climate forcing is an imposed change of Earth's energy balance, as may be caused, for example, by a change of the sun's brightness or a human-made change of atmospheric CO2. For convenience scientists often consider a standard forcing, doubled atmospheric CO2, because that is a level of forcing that humans will impose this century if fossil fuel use continues unabated.
We show from paleoclimate data that the eventual global warming due to doubled CO2 will be about 3°C (5.4°F) when only so-called fast feedbacks have responded to the forcing. Fast feedbacks are changes of quantities such as atmospheric water vapor and clouds, which change as climate changes, thus amplifying or diminishing climate change. Fast feedbacks come into play as global temperature changes, so their full effect is delayed several centuries by the thermal inertia of the ocean, which slows full climate response. However, about half of the fast-feedback climate response is expected to occur within a few decades. Climate response time is one of the important 'details' that climate models help to elucidate.
Fig. 1. Global temperature relative to peak Holocene temperature, based on ocean cores.
We also show that slow feedbacks amplify the global response to a climate forcing. The principal slow feedback is the area of Earth covered by ice sheets. It is easy to see why this feedback amplifies the climate change, because reduction of ice sheet size due to warming exposes a darker surface, which absorbs more sunlight, thus causing more warming. However, it is difficult for us to say how long it will take ice sheets to respond to human-made climate forcing because there are no documented past changes of atmospheric CO2 nearly as rapid as the current human-made change.
Ice sheet response to climate change is a problem where satellite observations may help. Also ice sheets models, as they become more realistic and are tested against observed ice sheet changes, may aid our understanding. But first let us obtain broad guidance from climate changes in the 'recent' past: the Pliocene and Pleistocene, the past 5.3 million years.
Figure 1 shows global surface temperature for the past 5.3 million years as inferred from cores of ocean sediments taken all around the global ocean. The last 800,000 years are expanded in the lower half of the figure. Assumptions are required to estimate global surface temperature change from deep ocean changes, but we argue and present evidence that the ocean core record yields a better measure of global mean change than that provided by polar ice cores.
Civilization developed during the Holocene, the interglacial period of the past 10,000 years during which global temperature and sea level have been unusually stable. Figure 1 shows two prior interglacial periods that were warmer than the Holocene: the Eemian (about 130,000 years ago) and the Holsteinian (about 400,000 years ago). In both periods sea level reached heights at least 4-6 meters (13-20 feet) greater than today. In the early Pliocene global temperature was no more than 1-2°C warmer than today, yet sea level was 15-25 meters (50-80 feet) higher.
The paleoclimate record makes it clear that a target to keep human made global warming less than 2°C, as proposed in some international discussions, is not sufficient – it is a prescription for disaster. Assessment of the dangerous level of CO2, and the dangerous level of warming, is made difficult by the inertia of the climate system. The inertia, especially of the ocean and ice sheets, allows us to introduce powerful climate forcings such as atmospheric CO2 with only moderate initial response. But that inertia is not our friend – it means that we are building in changes for future generations that will be difficult, if not impossible, to avoid.
Fig. 2. Greenland (a) and Antarctic (b) ice mass changes deduced from gravity field measurements by Velicogna (2009) and best-fits with 5-year and 10-year mass loss doubling times.
One big uncertainty is how fast ice sheets can respond to warming. Our best assessment will probably be from precise measurements of changes in the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which can be monitored via measurements of Earth's gravitational field by satellites.
Figure 2 shows that both Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are now losing mass at significant rates, as much as a few hundred cubic kilometers per year. We suggest that mass loss from disintegrating ice sheets probably can be approximated better by exponential mass loss than by linear mass loss. If either ice sheet were to lose mass at a rate with doubling time of 10 years or less, multi-meter sea level rise would occur this century.
The available record (Figure 2) is too brief to provide an indication of the shape of future ice mass loss, but the data will become extremely useful as the record lengthens. Continuation of these satellite measurements should have high priority.
=============================================================
References
Hansen, J., M. Sato, 2011: Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change, Accepted for publication in "Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of the Century: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects: Proceedings of Milutin Milankovitch 130th Anniversary Symposium" (A. Berger, F. Mesinger, and D. Šijači, Eds.)
Velicogna, I., 2009: Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503, doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.
Posted by James Hansen on Tuesday, 26 July, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Senator Jones Statements on Energy
In the Thursday, July 28, 2011 edition of the Marion County Observer was an article by Leigh Williams entitled "Gas prices inch back toward record highs." Much of the article was filled by statements by State Senator John O. Jones, a friend of the "energy interests." Several of his comments call for response, so he is mine (I have taken the liberty of correcting two obvious word-choice errors in the original article):
"We have different blends of gasoline in this country. Chicago has a different blend than we do because of pollution and government regulations. If [the federal government] would life (lift?) those regulations all of our refineries could produce the same gas. Gas produced in Wood River could be sold in California." If that happened, which blend would go to California? Would our "simple" and, presumably cheaper, blend be forced upon the good people of Los Angeles? The picture above was taken in 1988! This was after the worst of the smog years. Maybe we could vote on it, LA's 8,000,000 people vs Salem's 8,000 people. OOPS! [Tad]
I was born in New York City in 1939 and lived for a number of years there and just across the Hudson River in New Jersey. When we went to visit "in the country" we would always remark, as we returned home again, about the grey cover over New York City from their terrible smog.
Senator Jones goes on the say, "We could help everyone if the federal government could go to a single standard." I hate to point it out, but smog KILLS people. In the days of heavy smog, hundreds of deaths each year would be attributed to smog. How Sen. Jones can think that doing away with modern flexible standards would help anyone but the oil companies is beyond imagination. [Tad]
Senator Jones then goes off into some sort of imaginary world: "We have somebody filling up a few weeks ago for $50 and not (now?) that costs $80 which is an additional $30 that can't be spent on other things." I suppose it all depends upon the meaning of "a few weeks." Earlier in the article author Williams notes that, 'on average, [gas costs] 8.4 cents per gallon higher than one month ago. Let's take that almost five weeks to mean "a few weeks ago." So if one bought $50 worth of gasoline a month ago, at $3.709 per gallon, they got 13.48 gallons of gas. At the higher price of 3.799 their 13.48 gallons would cost $51.21, HARDLY the $30 increase that Jones mentions. But, of course, using outlandish figures is what politicians do - facts be DAMNED! [Tad]
We might consider looking at two other culprits - Big Oil and Oil Speculators (businessmen). Everyone in the industry with current knowledge recognizes that Oil Speculators (these are business people who "play" the commodities markets, running prices up to the point where they can sell their holding at as large a profit as possible) were largely responsible for the Spring prices increases. But as the chart above shows, the Oil Companies are taking advantage of that price run-up to achieve record profits (the blue bar represents oil costs, the red bar, corporate profits - all for the second quarter of the year, 2009, 2010, and 2011). Senator Jones might consider looking at his sponsors for some answers rather than continuing to try to "baffle us with bullshit."
If we, American citizens, let ourselves be persuaded by the BS factories and don't take the trouble to learn the truth, then, of course, we will achieve the future we deserve. Or, to use an old Indian saying, "If we continue to go the way we are headed, we will get there." [Tad]
I was born in New York City in 1939 and lived for a number of years there and just across the Hudson River in New Jersey. When we went to visit "in the country" we would always remark, as we returned home again, about the grey cover over New York City from their terrible smog.
Senator Jones goes on the say, "We could help everyone if the federal government could go to a single standard." I hate to point it out, but smog KILLS people. In the days of heavy smog, hundreds of deaths each year would be attributed to smog. How Sen. Jones can think that doing away with modern flexible standards would help anyone but the oil companies is beyond imagination. [Tad]
Senator Jones then goes off into some sort of imaginary world: "We have somebody filling up a few weeks ago for $50 and not (now?) that costs $80 which is an additional $30 that can't be spent on other things." I suppose it all depends upon the meaning of "a few weeks." Earlier in the article author Williams notes that, 'on average, [gas costs] 8.4 cents per gallon higher than one month ago. Let's take that almost five weeks to mean "a few weeks ago." So if one bought $50 worth of gasoline a month ago, at $3.709 per gallon, they got 13.48 gallons of gas. At the higher price of 3.799 their 13.48 gallons would cost $51.21, HARDLY the $30 increase that Jones mentions. But, of course, using outlandish figures is what politicians do - facts be DAMNED! [Tad]
If we, American citizens, let ourselves be persuaded by the BS factories and don't take the trouble to learn the truth, then, of course, we will achieve the future we deserve. Or, to use an old Indian saying, "If we continue to go the way we are headed, we will get there." [Tad]
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Where the Wild Things Are
Boston Pond, Stephen A. Forbes State Park, Marion County, Illinois.
On Tuesday, May 3rd and Wednesday, May 4th, I served as a guide to about 380 fifth grade students from around the county, plus their teachers and a few accompanying parents. The walk was listed as a Habitat Walk, in which the students would see multiple habitats. The original walk dealt with three habitats, prairie, wetland pond, and forest. But an excess of rain in the last few weeks made that trail far too wet for all but those equipped with good boots, so I was shifted to the Boston Pond area where we looked at forest and pond habitat. I had conducted a partial species survey of the original Wetlands Trail and found about 30 - 35 species to pick from, but had not seen Boston Pond until 30 minutes before the first group showed up, so I took a quick walk over the 1/4 mile trail looking for a few topics to discuss.
At 9:20 AM on a cool, wet, Tuesday the first group arrived. Over the next two days I would escort sixteen groups on a twenty minute walk around Boston Pond. The group pictured was the first group on Wednesday, May 4th when the temperature was close to 40 degrees F! Strangely, a few boys noted that it was cold! I briefed each group on some simple safety items (don't touch 3 leaved small plants - Poison Ivy, or 5 leaved plants - Poison Oak; don't run, don't pick up sticks, be careful of wild blackberry - it has thorns, and watch your step - you might trip over a root and fall). In the two days, only one person tripped over a root and fell - me! And, oh, by the way, it had been raining and he pathway was quite muddy and wet. I was my own best bad example! Then off we all went.
The main habitat was forest. We looked into the forest to see, in general, the kinds of trees it had - pine and broadleafed deciduous, which is good cover for the animals that live there; deer, fox, coyote, racoon, squirrel, skunk, and an assortment of birds and reptiles. They all call it "home" because it had all the things they needed to live, which is as good a definition of habitat as there is, I suppose. We looked at the shells of many walnuts in one place and talked about the importance to the animals of having a good food supply. The learned the semi-technical term, "Mast," which literally means "a pile of nuts" and is used to define in general the presence of good food for the animals.
The kids all looked at the "lay of the land" and most figured out right away that the gullies were formed by flowing water and erosion. The question I had posed was, "How did these gullies form?" One girl, in a church school, said, "God put them there." I told her the since this was not a science classroom quiz, I'd accept the answer, but would pose another for her, "Very good, but tell me, just how did he do that?" That led to a nice discussion about water, etc. by her and all of her classmates.
We then walked across the earthen dam and looked at what they called a "Honeysuckle Bush," that has the formal name "Amur Honeysuckle." It is an example of an invasive species that is crowding out the native flora. Among the most important native trees are Oaks and Hickories (producers of "hard" mast). When the seed (nut) is dropped and germinates, the young plant is very shade intolerant. With the honeysuckle (Amur and Japanese/Asian) and other invasive plants providing a strong shade cover, the young Oak or Hickory can't survive. And so our native trees are beginning to disappear. One parent on the tour told me that she "just loves" honeysuckle, but doesn't let it spread. I didn't say anything, but the birds are carrying the seeds away without her knowledge, and spreading the plant anyway. From such innocent and benign events come great tragedy in the natural world.
We looked at transplanted Bald Cypress growing in the water (it is actually native to far Southern Illinois, but with climate change will likely adapt here fairly well if it is given shelter from winter's harshest cold and winds). There was a small stand of cattails, which gave me an opportunity to talk about the filtering qualities of many water grasses, like the cattail and the common reed.
Then we reached the end of our little quarter-mile hike. Some kids asked good questions or had excellent observations to add to the group. Some just had a day off from school, but that's ok, too. They might have heard something that will stick with them. My final pitch to them was that the park, all 1600 acres of it, is there for them and for their use. Since they were all 12 years old, they could come to Boston Pond and try their hand at catching trout, bass, or catfish without even getting a fishing license - just bring an adult, with one, with you. The park is a return of a little bit of land to a more natural state. Come and enjoy it.
I also learned a couple of lessons myself:
1. Obey your own teachings - look for the roots before you stop talking and simply turn to walk away.
2. Fifth grade boys are drawn to primitive toilets like flies to a garbage heap (they must have the smallest bladders on the planet). In one class, every single boy had to visit the "outhouse."
3. When in the company of 20 - 25 fifth graders, don't expect to actually see any real wildlfe.
4. They all understood the value of "catch and release."
I had fun. I hope that most of them did, as well. This way to the egress!
Note: All photographs copyright Thomas A. Davis 2011. Permission granted to download and/or use for personal non-commercial use only.
The main habitat was forest. We looked into the forest to see, in general, the kinds of trees it had - pine and broadleafed deciduous, which is good cover for the animals that live there; deer, fox, coyote, racoon, squirrel, skunk, and an assortment of birds and reptiles. They all call it "home" because it had all the things they needed to live, which is as good a definition of habitat as there is, I suppose. We looked at the shells of many walnuts in one place and talked about the importance to the animals of having a good food supply. The learned the semi-technical term, "Mast," which literally means "a pile of nuts" and is used to define in general the presence of good food for the animals.
The kids all looked at the "lay of the land" and most figured out right away that the gullies were formed by flowing water and erosion. The question I had posed was, "How did these gullies form?" One girl, in a church school, said, "God put them there." I told her the since this was not a science classroom quiz, I'd accept the answer, but would pose another for her, "Very good, but tell me, just how did he do that?" That led to a nice discussion about water, etc. by her and all of her classmates.
We then walked across the earthen dam and looked at what they called a "Honeysuckle Bush," that has the formal name "Amur Honeysuckle." It is an example of an invasive species that is crowding out the native flora. Among the most important native trees are Oaks and Hickories (producers of "hard" mast). When the seed (nut) is dropped and germinates, the young plant is very shade intolerant. With the honeysuckle (Amur and Japanese/Asian) and other invasive plants providing a strong shade cover, the young Oak or Hickory can't survive. And so our native trees are beginning to disappear. One parent on the tour told me that she "just loves" honeysuckle, but doesn't let it spread. I didn't say anything, but the birds are carrying the seeds away without her knowledge, and spreading the plant anyway. From such innocent and benign events come great tragedy in the natural world.
Then we reached the end of our little quarter-mile hike. Some kids asked good questions or had excellent observations to add to the group. Some just had a day off from school, but that's ok, too. They might have heard something that will stick with them. My final pitch to them was that the park, all 1600 acres of it, is there for them and for their use. Since they were all 12 years old, they could come to Boston Pond and try their hand at catching trout, bass, or catfish without even getting a fishing license - just bring an adult, with one, with you. The park is a return of a little bit of land to a more natural state. Come and enjoy it.
1. Obey your own teachings - look for the roots before you stop talking and simply turn to walk away.
2. Fifth grade boys are drawn to primitive toilets like flies to a garbage heap (they must have the smallest bladders on the planet). In one class, every single boy had to visit the "outhouse."
3. When in the company of 20 - 25 fifth graders, don't expect to actually see any real wildlfe.
4. They all understood the value of "catch and release."
Note: All photographs copyright Thomas A. Davis 2011. Permission granted to download and/or use for personal non-commercial use only.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Fake Debt Crisis
The latest clamor over the evils of public debt have me puzzled. According to certain members of GOP, Inc., public debt is the grandest scam ever perpetuated on the American people. According to recent polls, over 60% of the people agree with that and note that getting rid of the debt is absolutely necessary, even in these times of economic stress.
To help me understand all the noise, I have set up a simple model for myself. First, a couple of figures:
1. 2010 USA Gross National Product (GDP) was approximately $13.2 Trillion Dollars.
2. 2010 National Debt Limit is approximately $14.4 Trillion Dollars
3. The Ratio of 2010 Debt/2010 GDP is, therefore, 1.09 to 1.
The question is, is this ratio dangerous? Well, here is my simple model, based upon the GOP, Inc. statement that “I have to pay all my bills. The Federal government should have to do the same.”
Let’s create a hypothetical simple nation, named “You.” The nation of "You" has a population of four, one producer, one supporter, and two welfare cases, ranging in age from 6 to 9. "You" doesn’t do manufacturing or agriculture or mining. It is a nation that provides services to other nations in the form of labor. The GDP of "You" is, for purposes of discussion, $60,000. From that amount the nation conducts its business, buying groceries, insurance, communications, fuel, etc. It also pays the welfare recipients $3.00 and $5.00 per week for miscellaneous chores.
Now what about debt? If the GOP, Inc. people are correct, "You" shouldn’t have any since “the bills are paid each month and year.” But is that really true? Experience shows that it is not. Consider the following debts of "You":
1. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (Sellers) for land and building purchases = $180,000 (approx)
2. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (Car financing firms) for transportation equipment = $40,000 (approx)
3. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (appliance stores) for Infrastructure needs = $10,000 (approx)
4. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (contractors) for construction labor (to put a add-on into the main government and legislation building) = $40,000 (approx)
5. So total debt to foreigners is $270,000, giving "You" a debt to income ratio of 4.5 to 1
This is the same as if our federal government had a debt of $59.4 Trillion Dollars!
There are those who will say that the Federal Government is a different situation because it doesn’t make or sell anything, but they would be incorrect. The Federal government buys security, control, assistance, transportation infrastructure, scientific services, and all sorts of other things, like medical care for retired people (ALL retired people, not just the poor), and the security needed to help with the vicissitudes of old age by assisting in the social security of elder citizens.
Does the national debt need to be taken in hand? Undoubtedly. But the problem is nowhere near as disastrous as GOP, Inc. would have us believe. Doing this rationally and effectively if one party to the conversation insists that it can only be done by punishing the poor and middle classes while enhancing the wealth of the richest one percent of the population is a recipe for disaster and, in the end, an invitation to social revolution. Doing it together cooperatively might even work and make us a better nation. Well, one can hope, can't one?
To help me understand all the noise, I have set up a simple model for myself. First, a couple of figures:
1. 2010 USA Gross National Product (GDP) was approximately $13.2 Trillion Dollars.
2. 2010 National Debt Limit is approximately $14.4 Trillion Dollars
3. The Ratio of 2010 Debt/2010 GDP is, therefore, 1.09 to 1.
The question is, is this ratio dangerous? Well, here is my simple model, based upon the GOP, Inc. statement that “I have to pay all my bills. The Federal government should have to do the same.”
Let’s create a hypothetical simple nation, named “You.” The nation of "You" has a population of four, one producer, one supporter, and two welfare cases, ranging in age from 6 to 9. "You" doesn’t do manufacturing or agriculture or mining. It is a nation that provides services to other nations in the form of labor. The GDP of "You" is, for purposes of discussion, $60,000. From that amount the nation conducts its business, buying groceries, insurance, communications, fuel, etc. It also pays the welfare recipients $3.00 and $5.00 per week for miscellaneous chores.
Now what about debt? If the GOP, Inc. people are correct, "You" shouldn’t have any since “the bills are paid each month and year.” But is that really true? Experience shows that it is not. Consider the following debts of "You":
1. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (Sellers) for land and building purchases = $180,000 (approx)
2. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (Car financing firms) for transportation equipment = $40,000 (approx)
3. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (appliance stores) for Infrastructure needs = $10,000 (approx)
4. Borrowed from foreigners (banks) to pay other foreigners (contractors) for construction labor (to put a add-on into the main government and legislation building) = $40,000 (approx)
5. So total debt to foreigners is $270,000, giving "You" a debt to income ratio of 4.5 to 1
This is the same as if our federal government had a debt of $59.4 Trillion Dollars!
There are those who will say that the Federal Government is a different situation because it doesn’t make or sell anything, but they would be incorrect. The Federal government buys security, control, assistance, transportation infrastructure, scientific services, and all sorts of other things, like medical care for retired people (ALL retired people, not just the poor), and the security needed to help with the vicissitudes of old age by assisting in the social security of elder citizens.
Does the national debt need to be taken in hand? Undoubtedly. But the problem is nowhere near as disastrous as GOP, Inc. would have us believe. Doing this rationally and effectively if one party to the conversation insists that it can only be done by punishing the poor and middle classes while enhancing the wealth of the richest one percent of the population is a recipe for disaster and, in the end, an invitation to social revolution. Doing it together cooperatively might even work and make us a better nation. Well, one can hope, can't one?
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
More on Gardening
Today was a bit cool, but I decided to get out and work on my compost bins. Here's the story behind them.
About 12 years ago I bought a dump-truck load of what was called "top soil." When the guy left it in my back yard he said, "Better use it as soon as possible." Well, one thing led to another, my health had some ups and downs, and the soil sat in place for about four years. When I went out to take some to use in my Rose Garden, I found it to be a hard as a rock - some topsoil! More time went on and I would, every so often, take a pick ax to the pile and chop up a few wheel barrow loads. Each time I would add peat moss, organic matter, and, when I had it, planting soil. Then I would place the load where I wanted it. In a few months, the little hill would get hard and difficult to handle.
Well, now it is spring and I'm determined to get this mess straightened out. I divided the bin into two piles, separating them by a wire fence. In one I added all of the peat moss I had, about two bales. The other awaits my attention. Over the last week, I've turned the better bin twice and, lo and behold, it is beginning to take shape. It is fairly easy to handle and lacks the compactness of the clay I had been having, so I feel that I'm on the right track.
As noted previously, I bought 120 pounds of good topsoil in 40 pound bags. I put that into a trash can parked at one end of the compost bins (there will be a set of three when I'm done.). Yesterday I bought some limber to use for the front of the bins. Then today, I finished setting posts for the front of bin #1 and bin #2. Bin #1 holds the "good compost," while bin #2 has the old stuff. I also put my new 1" X 6" X 4' boards in the front of Bin #1 and Bin #2, to assist in taking out composted material and adding new material to be composted.
The next stage is to complete bin #3, then turn half of bin #2 into #3, removing the worst clay to the final bin. I was able to start working the soil in bin #2 today and it is loosening up already. I added about 12 pounds of kitchen slops to bin #2 and covered it with good topsoil. Now maybe it can actually begin to compost properly, generating heat as it decays.
Tomorrow or Thursday I'll buy more peat moss (probably only two bales) to split between Bin #2 and Bin #3. Then I can start the process of working the three bins to get good nutritious compost for the gardens.
I'm something of a "satisficer" - I don't aim for perfection in these things. The side and read walls of the bins are wire fencing wrapped around metal posts driven into the ground. That means the walls are not straight, but bow before the weight of the soil. I'll work on that over time, as well as covers for each of the bins to keep nutrients from leaching away in the rains - although some water is needed for the composting process. It is all a work in progress and if anyone actually reads this, have pity on me, a poor sinner who doesn't know any better!
About 12 years ago I bought a dump-truck load of what was called "top soil." When the guy left it in my back yard he said, "Better use it as soon as possible." Well, one thing led to another, my health had some ups and downs, and the soil sat in place for about four years. When I went out to take some to use in my Rose Garden, I found it to be a hard as a rock - some topsoil! More time went on and I would, every so often, take a pick ax to the pile and chop up a few wheel barrow loads. Each time I would add peat moss, organic matter, and, when I had it, planting soil. Then I would place the load where I wanted it. In a few months, the little hill would get hard and difficult to handle.
Thinking about it, I thought, "Well, maybe if I put it into a compost heap with loads of other stuff it would actually soften up." So last year I built a new set of two compost bins - not very fancy and, to be honest, of rather poor construction. I am a simple man. Then I began to add organic matter and grass clippings, layering that with the "topsoil" from my old pile. In a couple of weeks it got as hard as concrete and when I tried to turn it, I was able only to turn part of it. By fall I said, "The heck with it," and let it sit over winter. to the left is a picture, after I tried to turn it all over. You can see the big clumps of clay. Welcome to Marion County, Illinois.
As noted previously, I bought 120 pounds of good topsoil in 40 pound bags. I put that into a trash can parked at one end of the compost bins (there will be a set of three when I'm done.). Yesterday I bought some limber to use for the front of the bins. Then today, I finished setting posts for the front of bin #1 and bin #2. Bin #1 holds the "good compost," while bin #2 has the old stuff. I also put my new 1" X 6" X 4' boards in the front of Bin #1 and Bin #2, to assist in taking out composted material and adding new material to be composted.
The next stage is to complete bin #3, then turn half of bin #2 into #3, removing the worst clay to the final bin. I was able to start working the soil in bin #2 today and it is loosening up already. I added about 12 pounds of kitchen slops to bin #2 and covered it with good topsoil. Now maybe it can actually begin to compost properly, generating heat as it decays.
Tomorrow or Thursday I'll buy more peat moss (probably only two bales) to split between Bin #2 and Bin #3. Then I can start the process of working the three bins to get good nutritious compost for the gardens.
I'm something of a "satisficer" - I don't aim for perfection in these things. The side and read walls of the bins are wire fencing wrapped around metal posts driven into the ground. That means the walls are not straight, but bow before the weight of the soil. I'll work on that over time, as well as covers for each of the bins to keep nutrients from leaching away in the rains - although some water is needed for the composting process. It is all a work in progress and if anyone actually reads this, have pity on me, a poor sinner who doesn't know any better!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)