.JPG "Earthen Spirituality")
Living within a living, loving planet
Archive for November, 2013
Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi – Keep Glyphosate away from it
Nov 24th
ISIS Report 28/10/13
Plants Warn One Another of Pest Attack through Mycorrhizal Fungal Network
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/mycorrhizae_and_plant_communication.php
Underground intercom between plants
A network of the soil microorganism – arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi – act as an underground intercommunications system between plants to warn off aphid attacks, a recent study from the University of Aberdeen in the UK reveals [1].
The living Earth
Nov 20th
The living Earth – Life is a Property of Planets
“No individual organism can exist in isolation…..According to the Gaia theory of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, the evolution of the first living organisms went hand in hand with the transformation of the planetary surface from an inorganic environment to a self-regulating biosphere. ‘In that sense,’ writes Harold Morowitz, ‘life is a property of planets rather than of individual organisms.’” Fritjof Capra, The Hidden Connections, 2002
Sky: I believe this statement of Morowitz is more in line with systems theory than the mainstream view of life ON the planet. My view is that there wouldn’t be “life” on the planet if the planet was not itself alive.
Harold J. Morowitz (born December 4, 1927, in Poughkeepsie, New York) is an American biophysicist who studies the application of thermodynamics to living systems. Author of numerous books and articles, his work includes technical monographs as well as essays. The origin of life has been his primary research interest for more than fifty years. He is currently the Robinson Professor of Biology and Natural Philosophy at George Mason University after a long career at Yale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_J._Morowitz
Is the Atlantic Current slowing down?
Nov 18th
Study to focus on Arctic after Greenland Sea found to have warmed 10 times faster than global ocean
By Phoebe McDonald
Updated Sat 2 Nov 2013, 4:57pm AEDT
“Scientists have revealed plans to examine temperature changes in the Arctic Ocean after a long-term study found the Greenland Sea is warming 10 times faster than the global ocean.”
Sky: There are some troublesome by the by statements here that deserve special attention. Some 10 years or so ago, there was a report that the flow of the Atlantic Current at its northern edge was decreasing: Let me see if I can find the reference. Here we are:
Ref: 05/204
http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2005/nov/05_204.shtml
01 December 2005
“The Atlantic Ocean overturning current that maintains Europe’s moderate climate has slowed by 30 per cent according to scientists from the National Oceanography Centre at the University of Southampton in research published today in Nature (Thursday, 1 December 2005).”
Then there was a retraction that not enough data had been collected. Then there was an article about how many monitors had been strung along a horizontal line across the Atlantic to measure the flow. Then nothing. No reports. Nothing. Now, in this article I read:
“Until the early 1980s, the central Greenland Sea has been mixed from the top to the bottom by winter cooling at the surface making waters dense enough to reach to sea floor,” she said.
“This transfer of cold water from the top to the bottom has not occurred in the last 30 years.
“After the ’80s it seems that winter heat losses – how much heat is lost from the ocean to the atmosphere – has decreased.
“The waters at the surface are lighter during the wintertime than before. They don’t reach the necessary density to reach the bottom of the Greenland Sea.”
In the past, the Thermohaline Circulation Conveyor [Atlantic Current] was driven by the sinking of the cooled down, saltier [heavier] water having been mixed with the cooler water from the higher latitudes. This drove the circulation current as we all know keeping winter temperatures several degrees warmer in Europe, especially the British Isles. It has always seemed common sense to me that as the arctic ice melts, a greater and greater volume of cold water will push this overturning further and further south.
“She says if current trends continue the density, temperature and salinity levels of deep water in the Greenland Sea will reach the same levels of those in the Arctic Ocean.
“The Greenland Sea is getting lighter … It will reach the same density of the waters that are coming in,” she said.
“When they reach the same density we don’t know what will happen.”
Well, I think she has a good idea. This means the end of the conveyor effect at that latitude. Remember, It is only in recent times that the vast accumulation of ice of the Arctic Ocean has melted. Before that time, there was not nearly the volume of colder water mixing with southern currents at that latitude.
I would like to see a report from all the meters strung out to measure current flow across the northern Atlantic. If the Greenland see continues to warm and the warm saltier waters from the south are not cooled sufficiently to make them sink, then the conveyor will end. Period. How fast is unknown.
Something special from Johanna Macy
Nov 15th
From the Greenspirit eNewsletter 14 November, 2013
“To be alive in this beautiful, Self-Organizing Universe – to participate in the Dance of Life with senses to perceive it, lungs that breathe it, organs that draw nourishment from it – is a wonder beyond words. Gratitude for the gift of life is the primary wellspring of all religions, the hallmark of the mystic, the source of all true art. Furthermore, it is a privilege to be alive in this time when we can choose to take part in the self-healing of our world.”
~ Joanna Macy ~
With Wealth comes Power
Nov 3rd
With wealth comes power
“When I started to look at what we are doing—the numbers were so boggling. I did some long division to make it more understandable. It came down to every four to four-and-a-half days, there’s a million more of us on the planet. That just doesn’t seem like a sustainable figure, and that’s pretty much where we are unless we start to do something about it.”
A CONVERSATION WITH ALAN WEISMAN http://littlebrown.com/countdown.html
John Kerry: “The future… will be defined by the combination of stability and economic growth”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24793814
(Sky:) Economic growth for whom? Every four-and-a-half days, there’s 990,000 more of us who will see poverty in their lifetimes.
“The remaining 91.6 percent of humanity splits around 17 percent of the wealth.”
“The planet overall minted around 2 million new millionaires last year.”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/point-seveners-new-name-millionaires-club
“Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1 percent of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest 10 percent hold 86 percent of the world’s wealth, and the top 1 percent alone account for 46 percent of global assets.”
Climate scientists: Don’t stop speaking out!
Nov 2nd
Naomi Klein: Why Science Is Telling All of Us to Revolt and Change Our Lives Before We Destroy the Planet
“But there are many people who are well aware of the revolutionary nature of climate science. It’s why some of the governments that decided to chuck their climate commitments in favour of digging up more carbon have had to find ever more thuggish ways to silence and intimidate their nations’ scientists. In Britain, this strategy is becoming more overt, with Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, writing recently that scientists should avoid “’suggesting that policies are either right or wrong” and should express their views “by working with embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena’”.
Naomi Klein, the author of “The Shock Doctrine” and “No Logo”, is working on a book and a film about the revolutionary power of climate change.
(Sky:)
I was shocked by the quote above taken from a statement by Ian Boyd at DEFRA concerning his advice that scientists should not criticise (“’suggesting that policies are either right or wrong”) government policy. When I Googled “UK government criticism”, I found dozens of people and organisations from all walks of life offering criticism. Why not scientists? They are specialists and I suggest that many if not most are extremely well qualified. Are all climate scientists working for the government now?
“by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.“
Thesaurus.com reveals that the word reason is a noun meaning mental analysis or explanation for an action. Therefore when a scientist comments on a climate event, it may well be an explanation for an action and thus perfectly reasonable. Without reference to a dictionary or the Thesaurus, I submit that dissent means to disagree. Quite obviously, disagreeing with an explanation and using reasonable arguments are neither synonyms nor antonyms. During a discussion, one can always offer reasonable dissenting opinions.