The challenge in deciding what is best for our forests.
As a great many of you already know, we live in a rural area in Southern Oregon. It is a beautiful place and we look out to the East upon Mount Sexton. But locally a great many houses are built on rural sites with the local forest just yards away.
In the U.S., wildland firefighters are able to stop about 98% of all wildfires before the fires have burned even 100 acres. That may seem comforting, but decades of quickly suppressing fires has had unintended consequences.
However, fuel accumulation isn’t the only consequence of fire suppression.
Fire suppression also disproportionately reduces certain types of fire. In a new study, my colleagues and I show how this effect, known as the suppression bias, compounds the impacts of fuel accumulation and climate change.
What happened to all the low-intensity fires?
Most wildfires are low-intensity. They ignite when conditions aren’t too dry or windy, and they can often be quickly extinguished.
The 2% of fires that escape suppression are those that are more extreme and much harder to fight. They account for about 98% of the burned area in a typical year.
The author and colleagues discuss changing wildfire in Montana and Idaho’s Bitterroot Mountains. By Mark Kreider.
In our study, we used a fire modeling simulation to explore the effects of the fire suppression bias and see how they compared to the effects of global warming and fuel accumulation alone.
Fuel accumulation and global warming both inherently make fires more severe. But over thousands of simulated fires, we found that allowing forests to burn only under the very worst conditions increased fire severity by the same amount as more than a century’s worth of fuel accumulation or 21st-century climate change.
The suppression bias also changes the way plants and animals interact with fire.
By removing low-intensity fires, humans may be changing the course of evolution. Without exposure to low-intensity fires, species can lose traits crucial for surviving and recovering from such events.
In contrast, low-intensity fires free up space and resources for new growth, while still retaining living trees and other biological legacies that support seedlings in their vulnerable initial years.
By quickly putting out low-intensity fires and allowing only extreme fires to burn, conventional suppression reduces the opportunities for climate-adapted plants to establish and help ecosystems adjust to changes like global warming.
Firefighters keep watch for smoke from a fire tower in the Coeur d’Alene National Forest, Idaho, in 1932. Forest Service photo by K. D. Swan
Suppression makes burned area increase faster
As the climate becomes hotter and drier, more area is burning in wildfires. If suppression removes fire, it should help slow this increase, right?
In fact, we found it does just the opposite.
We found that while conventional suppression led to less total area burning, the yearly burned area increased more than three times faster under conventional suppression than under less aggressive suppression efforts. The amount of area burned doubled every 14 years with conventional fire suppression under simulated climate change, instead of every 44 years when low- and moderate-intensity fires were allowed to burn. That raises concerns for how quickly people and ecosystems will have to adapt to extreme fires in the future.
With conventional fire suppression, the average fire size will increase faster as the planet warms than it would under a less aggressive approach. Mark Kreider
The fact that the amount of area burned is increasing is undoubtedly driven by climate change. But our study shows that the rate of this increase may also be a result of conventional fire management.
The near total suppression of fires over the last century means that even a little additional fire in a more fire-prone future can create big changes. As climate change continues to fuel more fires, the relative increase in area burned will be much bigger.
To address the wildfire crisis, fire managers can be less aggressive in suppressing low- and moderate-intensity fires when it is safe to do so. They can also increase the use of prescribed fire and cultural burning to clear away brush and other fuel for fires.
These low-intensity fires will not only reduce the risk of future extreme fires, but they also will create conditions that favor the establishment of species better suited to the changing climate, thereby helping ecosystems adapt to global warming.
Coexisting with wildfire requires developing technologies and approaches that enable the safe management of wildfires under moderate burning conditions. Our study shows that this may be just as necessary as other interventions, such as reducing the number of fires unintentionally started by human activities and mitigating climate change.
The article makes a great deal of sense and presents a solution that may not be our first thought. But especially the message is fundamentally important, and please watch the video because it very clearly presents the benefits of the solution.
So we want more low-intensity fires! Please! Or to say it another way, we want more prescribed fires.
Jean and I live in an ideal part of America: Merlin in Southern Oregon. We did not plan to come here but in 2012 we wanted to move from Payson, Az. and fortune brought us here. However, I started this blog in 2009 when I had seen the integrity and happiness of dogs and wanted to write about them.
However the wider world is far, far from just the integrity and happiness of dogs.
On March 17th Patrice Ayme posted yet another post on his blog about war and I felt that it was important to be read by as many followers of Learning from Dogs as is possible. (The few small typographical changes are mine.)
ooOOoo
Want No War? A Symptom That Nazism Perdures
Do not whine that war is bad. Ask instead what it is for.
Friend of a friend Manfred Krieger: Will mankind ever learn that wars do no good to anyone?
Patrice Ayme: All over the world, the vermin helping Putin claim that war does not do any good. Similarly the Nazis, after claiming for years that they were the party of peace and minorities, accused big bad France of having launched WW2. France did, indeed, but that was after the Nazis had invaded a few countries, including two democracies, and officially killed a few hundred thousands of alleged mental retards and genetically defective (including a relative of Hitler).
Vermin helping Putin vermin has been crawling around the French and German leadership for a quarter of a century. That Putin was a war criminal was obvious as early as 1999.
The Putinists claim that war never helped anyone. So the war to stop Hitler did not do good to anyone? Only an obdurate Nazi would hold that opinion.
My family was hunted by the Gestapo: I am delighted that more than five million Nazis got exterminated like the vicious vermin they were. It would have been better if the French Republic had declared war on the Nazi gangrene earlier. Destroying the vermin when it was weaker would have saved the lives of in excess of 50 million thoroughly innocent people who got killed as a result of having let the Axis fly from victory to victory, gathering alliances with nearly as equally repulsive tyrannies in the process.
This may well be happening now: the Chinese dictatorship is sitting on a fence, not trying to help the Kremlin tyrant too much. The fascist Iranian theocracy retreated a bit when threatened recently by the West after attacks in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and Syria.
This hesitancy on the part of fascists also happened in World War Two; for a long time Mussolini did not dare to join Hitler, but then they militarily cooperated attacking Spain and three years later, attacking France. But ultimately, except for Franco who looked degenerate, but was smarter, fellow dictators, even Stalin, sided with the Axis.
In final analysis, WW2, and also WW1, happened because, primarily, not enough Germans fought the forces of fascist imperialistic plutocracy inside Germany.
So it is a lack of war, not an excess of it, which brought disaster.
That happened because not enough Morally Correct Germans realized in a timely manner that it would do some good to destroy the fascist imperialistic plutocratic mentality.
None of this deplorable meta-mentality is obsolete; France and Germany encouraged and empowered the Kremlin vermin in the last quarter of a century, by building its economy and financing it with advantageous trade. Now the Kremlin vermin is potentially the greatest threat against humanity and civilization, ever. And what does the German government do? Claim that one should not fight the Kremlin gangrene too much, to not aggravate matters too much.
But that appeasement in face of the unacceptable only encourages the latter. Germans still have to understand the biggest lessons of history.
‘An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile quality food, hoping
that the ferocious creature will die of indigestion.’
A dramatic article from George Monbiot about water!
I read the latest from George Monbiot yesterday morning and was startled. Startled because I hadn’t thought of it before. Startled because here in Merlin, Southern Oregon we have had so much rain since the beginning of November, 2023 that our acres are swimming in the wet. Startled since that time also our Bummer Creek, which flows across our land, has been at record depths.
But this report is incredibly important and I wanted to share it with you, as I have Geo. Monbiot’s permission for so doing.
ooOOoo
Dry Run
Posted on11th March 2024
The mega-droughts in Spain and the US are a portent of a gathering global water crisis.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 4th March 2024
There’s a flaw in the plan. It’s not a small one: it is an Earth-sized hole in our calculations. To keep pace with the global demand for food, crop production needs to grow by at least 50% by 2050. In principle, if nothing else changes, this is feasible, thanks mostly to improvements in crop breeding and farming techniques. But everything else is going to change.
Even if we set aside all other issues – heat impacts, soil degradation, epidemic plant diseases accelerated by the loss of genetic diversity – there is one which, without help from any other cause, could prevent the world’s people from being fed. Water.
A paper published in 2017 estimated that to match crop production to expected demand, water use for irrigation would have to increase by 146% by the middle of this century. One minor problem. Water is already maxed out.
In general, the dry parts of the world are becoming drier, partly through reduced rainfall; partly through declining river flow as mountain ice and snow retreats; and partly through rising temperatures causing increased evaporation and increased transpiration by plants. Many of the world’s major growing regions are now threatened by “flash droughts”, in which hot and dry weather sucks moisture from the soil at frightening speed. Some places, such as the southwest of the US, now in its 24th year of drought, may have switched permanently to a drier state. Rivers fail to reach the sea, lakes and aquifers are shrinking, species living in freshwater are becoming extinct at roughly five times the rate of species that live on land and major cities are threatened by extreme water stress.
Already, agriculture accounts for 90% of the world’s freshwater use. We have pumped so much out of the ground that we’ve changed the Earth’s spin. The water required to meet growing food demand simply does not exist.
That 2017 paper should have sent everyone scrambling. But as usual, it was ignored by policymakers and the media. Only when the problem arrives in Europe do we acknowledge that there’s a crisis. But while there is understandable panic about the drought in Catalonia and Andalusia, there’s an almost total failure among powerful interests to acknowledge that this is just one instance of a global problem, a problem that should feature at the top of the political agenda.
Though drought measures have triggered protests in Spain, this is far from the most dangerous flashpoint. The catchment of the Indus river is shared by three nuclear powers – India, Pakistan and China – and several highly unstable and divided regions already afflicted by hunger and extreme poverty. Today, 95% of the river’s dry season flow is extracted, mostly for irrigation. But water demand in both Pakistan and India is growing rapidly. Supply – temporarily boosted by the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush – will, before long, peak and then go into decline.
Even under the most optimistic climate scenario, runoff from Asian glaciers is expected to peak before mid-century, and glacier mass will shrink by about 46% by 2100. Some analysts see water competition between India and Pakistan as a major cause of the repeated conflicts in Kashmir. But unless a new Indus waters treaty is struck, taking falling supplies into account, this fighting could be a mere prelude for something much worse.
There’s a widespread belief that these problems can be solved simply by enhancing the efficiency of irrigation: huge amounts of water are wasted in agriculture. So let me introduce you to the irrigation efficiency paradox. As better techniques ensure that less water is required to grow a given volume of crops, irrigation becomes cheaper. As a result, it attracts more investment, encourages farmers to grow thirstier, more profitable plants, and expands across a wider area. This is what happened, for instance, in the Guadiana river basin in Spain, where a €600m investment to reduce water use by improving the efficiency of irrigation has instead increased it.
You can overcome the paradox through regulation: laws to limit both total and individual water consumption. But governments prefer to rely on technology alone. Without political and economic measures, it doesn’t work.
Nor are other technofixes likely to solve the problem. Governments are planning massive engineering schemes to pipe water from one place to another. But climate breakdown and rising demand ensure that many of the donor regions are also likely to run dry. Water from desalination plants typically costs five or 10 times as much as water from the ground or the sky, while the process requires masses of energy and generates great volumes of toxic brine.
Above all, we need to change our diets. Those of us with dietary choice (in other words, the richer half of the world’s population) should seek to minimise the water footprint of our food. With apologies for harping on about it, this is yet another reason to switch to an animal-free diet, which reduces both total crop demand and, in most cases, water use. The water demand of certain plant products, especially almonds and pistachios in California, has become a major theme in the culture wars, as rightwing influencers attack plant-based diets. But, excessive as the watering of these crops is, more than twice as much irrigation water is used in California to grow forage plants to feed livestock, especially dairy cows. Dairy milk has much higher water demand even than the worst alternative (almond milk), and is astronomically higher than the best alternatives, such as oat or soya milk.
This is not to give all plant products a free pass: horticulture can make massive demands on water supplies. Even within a plant-based diet, we should be switching from some grains, vegetables and fruit to others. Governments and retailers should help us through a combination of stronger rules and informative labelling.
Instead, they do the opposite. Last month, at the behest of the EU’s agricultural commissioner, Janusz Wojciechowski, the European Commission deleted from its new climate plan the call to incentivise “diversified” (animal-free) protein sources. Regulatory capture is never stronger than in the food and farming sector.
I hate to pile yet more on to you, but some of us have to try to counter the endless bias against relevance in politics and most of the media. This is yet another of those massive neglected issues, any one of which could be fatal to peace and prosperity on a habitable planet. Somehow, we need to recover our focus.
There have been so many disastrous activities on climate change, and I am not belittling them, but it was amazing to come across a TED Talk last Saturday that I watched. But first the speaker, Asmeret Asefaw Berhe, who was born in Asmara, Eritrea. Her bio (in part):
From WikiPedia:
ooOOoo
Asmeret Asefaw Berhe is a soil biogeochemist and political ecologist who is the current Director of the Office of Science at the US Department of Energy. She was previously the Professor of Soil Biogeochemistry and the Ted and Jan Falasco Chair in Earth Sciences and Geology in the Department of Life and Environmental Sciences; University of California, Merced.[1] Her research group worked to understand how soil helps regulate the Earth’s climate.
Advocacy and global impact work
Berhe’s work at the intersection of soil, climate change, and political ecology lends itself well to a number of global issues. During her graduate career, she was a member of the working group that produced the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which was called for by the United Nations Secretary Kofi Annan to assess the impact of humans on the environment. She was one of the lead authors on the 2005 report’s chapter on “Drivers of Change in Ecosystem Condition and Services.”[19] The Assessment received the Zayed International Prize for the Environment in 2005.[20]
In 2018, Berhe was selected as part of the inaugural National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine New Voices in Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine cohort, as an early career leader working to advance the conversation around key emerging global issues and communicate the evidence base around those challenges.[21]
An advocate for women in science, Berhe is currently a co-Principal Investigator of ADVANCEGeo, which is working to transform the workplace climate of the geosciences to increase retention of women in the field and develop a sustainable model that can be transferred to other scientific domains. Currently, the Earth Science Women’s Network (ESWN), the Association for Women Geoscientists, and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) have partnered to address the issue of sexual harassment in the earth, space and environmental sciences.[22] The program led by Erika Marín-Spiotta and is run with support from a four-year $1.1 million grant from the National Science Foundation.[23]
She currently serves as an advisory board member of 500 Women Scientists, a grassroots organization working to make science open, inclusive, and accessible, and is on the leadership board of the Earth Science Women’s Network.
Earth’s soil can store vast amounts of carbon. Biogeochemist Asmeret Asefaw Berhe says soil could be a powerful tool for fighting climate change – if only we stopped treating it like dirt.
About Asmeret Asefaw Berhe
Asmeret Asefaw Berhe is a soil biogeochemist and President Biden’s nominee to lead the Department of Energy Office of Science. She is a professor of soil biogeochemistry at University of California, Merced. Her research group works to understand how soil helps regulate the earth’s climate.
Berhe’s work exists at the intersection of soil, climate change, and political ecology. During her graduate career, she was a member of the working group that produced the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which was called for by the United Nations to assess the impact of humans on the environment.
Berhe received a B.Sc. in Soil and Water Conservation at the University of Asmara in Eritrea. She has an M.Sc. in Political Ecology from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in Biogeochemistry from University of California, Berkeley.
This segment of the TED Radio Hour was produced by Matthew Cloutier and Sylvie Douglis and edited by Rachel Faulkner and Katie Simon. You can follow us on Facebook @TEDRadioHour and email us at TEDRadioHour@npr.org.
Now that positive TED Talk:
We wish Asmeret the very best of fortune in bringing about these changes.
The challenge with writing posts, albeit not so often, about the global environment, especially when I am a non-scientist, is that one relies entirely on the words of others. In the case of a recent article, published by The Conversation, the authors are claimed to be specialists, and I do not doubt their credentials.
The three authors are René van Westen who is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Climate Physics, at Utrecht University, Henk A. Dijkstra who is a Professor of Physics, also at Utrecht University, and Michael Kliphuis, a Climate Model Specialist, again at Utrecht University.
So, here is their article:
ooOOoo
Atlantic Ocean is headed for a tipping point − once melting glaciers shut down the Gulf Stream, we would see extreme climate change within decades, study shows
Superstorms, abrupt climate shifts and New York City frozen in ice. That’s how the blockbuster Hollywood movie “The Day After Tomorrow” depicted an abrupt shutdown of the Atlantic Ocean’s circulation and the catastrophic consequences.
While Hollywood’s vision was over the top, the 2004 movie raised a serious question: If global warming shuts down the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which is crucial for carrying heat from the tropics to the northern latitudes, how abrupt and severe would the climate changes be?
In a new study using the latest generation of Earth’s climate models, we simulated the flow of fresh water until the ocean circulation reached that tipping point.
The results showed that the circulation could fully shut down within a century of hitting the tipping point, and that it’s headed in that direction. If that happened, average temperatures would drop by several degrees in North America, parts of Asia and Europe, and people would see severe and cascading consequences around the world.
We also discovered a physics-based early warning signal that can alert the world when the Atlantic Ocean circulation is nearing its tipping point.
In the Atlantic Ocean circulation, the relatively warm and salty surface water near the equator flows toward Greenland. During its journey it crosses the Caribbean Sea, loops up into the Gulf of Mexico, and then flows along the U.S. East Coast before crossing the Atlantic.
This current, also known as the Gulf Stream, brings heat to Europe. As it flows northward and cools, the water mass becomes heavier. By the time it reaches Greenland, it starts to sink and flow southward. The sinking of water near Greenland pulls water from elsewhere in the Atlantic Ocean and the cycle repeats, like a conveyor belt.
This is where our study comes in. We performed an experiment with a detailed climate model to find the tipping point for an abrupt shutdown by slowly increasing the input of fresh water.
We found that once it reaches the tipping point, the conveyor belt shuts down within 100 years. The heat transport toward the north is strongly reduced, leading to abrupt climate shifts.
The result: Dangerous cold in the North
Regions that are influenced by the Gulf Stream receive substantially less heat when the circulation stops. This cools the North American and European continents by a few degrees.
The European climate is much more influenced by the Gulf Stream than other regions. In our experiment, that meant parts of the continent changed at more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) per decade – far faster than today’s global warming of about 0.36 F (0.2 C) per decade. We found that parts of Norway would experience temperature drops of more than 36 F (20 C). On the other hand, regions in the Southern Hemisphere would warm by a few degrees.
The annual mean temperature changes after the conveyor belt stops reflect an extreme temperature drop in northern Europe in particular. René M. van Westen
These temperature changes develop over about 100 years. That might seem like a long time, but on typical climate time scales, it is abrupt.
The conveyor belt shutting down would also affect sea level and precipitation patterns, which can push other ecosystems closer to their tipping points. For example, the Amazon rainforest is vulnerable to declining precipitation. If its forest ecosystem turned to grassland, the transition would release carbon to the atmosphere and result in the loss of a valuable carbon sink, further accelerating climate change.
The Atlantic circulation has slowed significantly in the distant past. During glacial periods when ice sheets that covered large parts of the planet were melting, the influx of fresh water slowed the Atlantic circulation, triggering huge climate fluctuations.
So, when will we see this tipping point?
The big question – when will the Atlantic circulation reach a tipping point – remains unanswered. Observations don’t go back far enough to provide a clear result. While a recent study suggested that the conveyor belt is rapidly approaching its tipping point, possibly within a few years, these statistical analyses made several assumptions that give rise to uncertainty.
Instead, we were able to develop a physics-based and observable early warning signal involving the salinity transport at the southern boundary of the Atlantic Ocean. Once a threshold is reached, the tipping point is likely to follow in one to four decades.
A climate model experiment shows how quickly the AMOC slows once it reaches a tipping point with a threshold of fresh water entering the ocean. How soon that will happen remains an open question. René M. van Westen
The climate impacts from our study underline the severity of such an abrupt conveyor belt collapse. The temperature, sea level and precipitation changes will severely affect society, and the climate shifts are unstoppable on human time scales.
It might seem counterintuitive to worry about extreme cold as the planet warms, but if the main Atlantic Ocean circulation shuts down from too much meltwater pouring in, that’s the risk ahead.
This article was updated to Feb. 11, 2024, to fix a typo: The experiment found temperatures in parts of Europe changed by more than 5 F per decade.
I am 79! I like to think that whatever is coming down the wires, so to speak, will be after my death. But that is a cop out for a) I have a son and a daughter who are in their early fifties, b) I have a grandson, my daughter and son-in-law’s young man, who is a teenager, with his birthday next month, and c) I could possibly live for another twenty years.
The challenge is how to bring this imminent catastrophic global change in temperature to the fore. We need a global solution now enforced by a globally respected group of scientists and leaders, and, frankly, I do not see that happening.
All one can do is to hope. Hope that the global community will eschew the present-day extremes of warring behaviour and see the need for change. That is NOW!
So that the Hollywood movie, The Day After Tomorrow, remains a fictional story. And for those that have forgotten the film or who have never seen it, here is a small slice of a Wikipedia report:
Patrice Ayme is a writer who lives in France and is a person of extreme breadth of knowledge, and very clever to boot.
He writes blog posts on a variety of topics. His latest post is breathtakingly powerful and could be the way we all go over the future years. Read it for yourself online or as follows:
ooOOoo
How Solar System Colonization Will Save Earth
By Patrice Ayme
Saving Earth and colonizing the Solar System are basically the same problem and have the same solution: much more advanced technology [1].There is no contradiction, far from it. There is complementarity, as technology that will have to be developed for space will be found to be useful for Earth. For psycho-political reasons those technologies won’t be developed directly for Earth. So those who complain about space, while claiming we should focus on Earth, get it only half right.
Colonizing Mars with present technology is not going to happen anymore than the technology of the 1960s enabled to colonize the Moon. A visit from a human crew on Mars with the technology SpaceX wants to develop is imaginable… Barely. And those will just be visits, multi-year commitments full of lethal radiation and worse living accommodations than the highest maximum security prison: basically what was done on the Moon in the 1960s, but much more daunting.
It’s much more feasible to establish bases on the Moon. First, there is plenty of oxygen and hydrogen (so water) on the Moon, imprisoned in rocks: one only needs energy to extract them, and the Moon has plenty of that (solar panels!) Second, the gravity well of the Moon is also half that of Mars. Third, the Moon is close by and one can go there all the time (whereas Mars can be visited with present fossil fuel tech only every two years, when the planets align; serious commuting of goods and people between Earth and Mars will require nuclear propulsion).Monitoring robots on the Moon is possible, whereas on Mars, with up to twenty minutes delay, one will have to use advanced, autonomous AI. Fixing problems caused by dust in robots on the Moon with roaming human crews… A solution that won’t exist on Mars, for decades.
Thus AI is the first order solution: AI just needs energy, not shelter, air, water and food. AI colonies on the Moon, and then, later, Mars could build environments that humans could then inhabit. Say pressurized lava tubes…
Skeptics could object that I didn’t roll out specific techs. But space colonization, especially if robot and AI driven, will require much higher tech. For example solar energy, which works wonderfully, was led by its usage in space… where it has long worked splendidly. The solar cells used in space have an efficiency more than twice that of the ones used on the ground… from using more advanced (but expensive) materials, like Gallium… That has invited researchers and companies to boost the efficiency of the silicon and now perovskites cells used on the ground. SpaceX uses Reliable Reusable Rockets (RRR), lowering the cost of space access… That is revolutionary, but actually follows the tech used to land on the Moon in the first place. But the first landing rockets, the LEMS, were Lunar Exploration Modules… They showed the way…
Technology is impossible without wisdom, and wisdom impossible without technology. One can’t grow without the other. The quest for tech is a quest for wisdom.
We don’t need AI on Earth, at least so many “leaders” will think (and they would be very wrong)… However, for space colonization, clearly, we need AI. Space AI will then bring in the Earth AI we need to solve countless problems, including the ones we didn’t think we had.
NASA picture from Curiosity rover on a rather barren, poisonous, irradiated, dusty and dry Mars
P/S: Scifi novels are an old genre: The Birds of Aristophanes, making fun of the colonies Athens established everywhere, by establishing one in the sky, preceded the space colonization of Lucian by seven centuries…
***
[1] The European solution to the Earth Crisis has been Mathusianism: use less energy. This weakens Europe and encourages its dictatorial enemies. Actually the best solution is rather the opposite: to use more ABSOLUTE WORTH ENERGY. Use, much more EFFICIENT energy. In particular, we have to leverage fossil fuels to get out of them… using the energy they provide to invent new science and tech….
ooOOoo
Yet another masterpiece from Mr. Ayme. I cannot add anything to this post except to applaud it.
“The Future of Democracy” is, for me, incredibly interesting.
I haven’t a clue as to how long I have been listening to the annual Reith Lecture on BBC Radio 4. It has been many years.
As Wikipedia explains:
The Reith Lectures is a series of annual BBCradiolectures given by leading figures of the day. They are commissioned by the BBC and broadcast on Radio 4 and the World Service. The lectures were inaugurated in 1948 to mark the historic contribution made to public service broadcasting by Lord Reith, the corporation’s first director-general.
Reith maintained that broadcasting should be a public service that aimed to enrich the intellectual and cultural life of the nation. It is in this spirit that the BBC each year invites a leading figure to deliver the lectures. The aim is to advance public understanding and debate about issues of contemporary interest.
Wikipedia
From the BBC’s History of the BBC.
As the BBC explains on the BBC Sounds website:
Released On: 29 Nov 2023
Available for over a year
This year’s BBC Reith Lecturer is Ben Ansell, Professor of Comparative Democratic Institutions at Nuffield College, Oxford University.
He will deliver four lectures called “Our Democratic Future,” asking how we can build a politics that works for all of us with systems which are robust to the challenges of the twenty first century, from climate change to artificial intelligence. In this first lecture, recorded at New Broadcasting House in London in front of an audience, Professor Ansell asks whether we are in a ‘democratic recession’, where longstanding democracies are at risk of breakdown and authoritarianism is resurgent. And he examines how resilient democracies are to the challenges of artificial intelligence, social media and if they can effectively address core challenges from climate change to inequality.
The Reith Lectures are presented by Anita Anand and produced by Jim Frank. The Editor is China Collins. Reith Co-ordinator is Brenda Brown. The series is mixed by Rod Farquhar and Neil Churchill.
Welcome to my website. I am Professor of Comparative Democratic Institutions at Nuffield College, University of Oxford. My work focuses on a variety of issues in political economy, including both comparative politics and international relations.
I am also co-editor (with David Samuels) of Comparative Political Studies.
My 2010 book, From the Ballot to the Blackboard, published by Cambridge University Press, is available here. My 2014 book (with David Samuels), Inequality and Democratization: An Elite-Competition Approach, published by Cambridge University Press, is available here.
This site contains a variety of working papers, syllabi, my biography, and other information about my academic work. My CV is available here.
I was born in London before the end of World War II and to a great extent my upbringing was in the times of yesterday. But the world has moved on in many, many ways. It is too easy to say that we live in very strange times.
Thus it was enlightening to come across this talk, under the TED Talks banner, quite recently. I have great pleasure in sharing it with you. Plus, Hannah’s website is here. (From which I have taken the following words!)
(P.S. The YouTube video is just over thirteen minutes long. It automatically runs into the next video so you will have to stop it yourself.)
ooOOoo
The word “sustainability” gets thrown around a lot these days. But what does it actually mean for humanity to be sustainable? Environmental data scientist Hannah Ritchie digs into the numbers behind human progress across centuries, unpacking why the conventional understanding of sustainability is misleading and showing how we can be the first generation of humans to actually achieve it.
Why you should listen
Hannah Ritchie is deputy editor and research lead at Our World in Data, an online publication making data and research on the world’s largest problems accessible and understandable for non-experts. She is a senior researcher at the University of Oxford, where she studies how environmental issues intersect with others like poverty, global health and education. She has also done extensive research into the question of how to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet without wrecking the planet. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vox, Wired, BBC, Al Jazeera, The Economist and New Scientist.
In 2022, Ritchie was named Scotland’s Youth Climate Champion. She is also an honorary fellow at the University of Edinburgh and Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation, and a fellow at the Energy for Growth Hub, focused on ending global energy poverty. Her forthcoming book,The First Generation, makes an evidence-based case for why we have a meaningful chance to solve global environmental problems for the first time in human history.
We take it for granted! Of that I am sure. But the question of how oxygen first came to be built up in our atmosphere is fascinating. There was a recent article written by Elizabeth Swanner, who is Associate Professor of Geology, Iowa State University that was published in The Conversation. It makes for a very interesting read.
ooOOoo
A layered lake is a little like Earth’s early oceans − and lets researchers explore how oxygen built up in our atmosphere billions of years ago
Researchers sample water from various layers to analyze back in the lab. Elizabeth Swanner, CC BY-ND
Little Deming Lake doesn’t get much notice from visitors to Itasca State Park in Minnesota. There’s better boating on nearby Lake Itasca, the headwaters of the Mississippi River. My colleagues and I need to maneuver hundreds of pounds of equipment down a hidden path made narrow by late-summer poison ivy to launch our rowboats.
But modest Deming Lake offers more than meets the eye for me, a geochemist interested in how oxygen built up in the atmosphere 2.4 billion years ago. The absence of oxygen in the deep layers of Deming Lake is something this small body of water has in common with early Earth’s oceans.
On each of our several expeditions here each year, we row our boats out into the deepest part of the lake – over 60 feet (18 meters), despite the lake’s surface area being only 13 acres. We drop an anchor and connect our boats in a flotilla, readying ourselves for the work ahead.
Researchers’ boats on Deming Lake. Elizabeth Swanner, CC BY-ND
Deming Lake is meromictic, a term from Greek that means only partially mixing. In most lakes, at least once a year, the water at the top sinks while the water at the bottom rises because of wind and seasonal temperature changes that affect water’s density. But the deepest waters of Deming Lake never reach the surface. This prevents oxygen in its top layer of water from ever mixing into its deep layer.
Less than 1% of lakes are meromictic, and most that are have dense, salty bottom waters. Deming Lake’s deep waters are not very salty, but of the salts in its bottom waters, iron is one of the most abundant. This makes Deming Lake one of the rarest types of meromictic lakes.
Postdoc researcher Sajjad Akam collects a water sample for chemical analysis back in the lab. Elizabeth Swanner, CC BY-ND
The lake surface is calm, and the still air is glorious on this cool, cloudless August morning. We lower a 2-foot-long water pump zip-tied to a cable attached to four sensors. The sensors measure the temperature, amount of oxygen, pH and amount of chlorophyll in the water at each layer we encounter. We pump water from the most intriguing layers up to the boat and fill a myriad of bottles and tubes, each destined for a different chemical or biological analysis.
My colleagues and I have homed in on Deming Lake to explore questions about how microbial life adapted to and changed the environmental conditions on early Earth. Our planet was inhabited only by microbes for most of its history. The atmosphere and the oceans’ depths didn’t have much oxygen, but they did have a lot of iron, just like Deming Lake does. By investigating what Deming Lake’s microbes are doing, we can better understand how billions of years ago they helped to transform the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans into what they’re like now.
Chlorophyll colors water from the lake slightly green. Elizabeth Swanner, CC BY-ND
At Deming Lake, my colleagues and I pay special attention to the water layer where the chlorophyll readings jump. Chlorophyll is the pigment that makes plants green. It harnesses sunlight energy to turn water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugars. Nearly 20 feet (6 meters) below Deming’s surface, the chlorophyll is in cyanobacteria and photosynthetic algae, not plants.
But the curious thing about this layer is that we don’t detect oxygen, despite the abundance of these oxygen-producing organisms. This is the depth where iron concentrations start to climb to the high levels present at the lake’s bottom.
This high-chlorophyll, high-iron and low-oxygen layer is of special interest to us because it might help us understand where cyanobacteria lived in the ancient ocean, how well they were growing and how much oxygen they produced.
We suspect the reason cyanobacteria gather at this depth in Deming Lake is that there is more iron there than at the top of the lake. Just like humans need iron for red blood cells, cyanobacteria need lots of iron to help catalyze the reactions of photosynthesis.
A likely reason we can’t measure any oxygen in this layer is that in addition to cyanobacteria, there are a lot of other bacteria here. After a good long life of a few days, the cyanobacteria die, and the other bacteria feed on their remains. These bacteria rapidly use up any oxygen produced by still photosynthesizing cyanobacteria the way a fire does as it burns through wood.
We know there are lots of bacteria here based on how cloudy the water is, and we see them when we inspect a drop of this water under a microscope. But we need another way to measure photosynthesis besides measuring oxygen levels.
Long-running lakeside laboratory
The other important function of photosynthesis is converting carbon dioxide into sugars, which eventually are used to make more cells. We need a way to track whether new sugars are being made, and if they are, whether it’s by photosynthetic cyanobacteria. So we fill glass bottles with samples of water from this lake layer and seal them tight with rubber stoppers.
We drive the 3 miles back to the Itasca Biological Station and Laboratories where we will set up our experiments. The station opened in 1909 and is home base for us this week, providing comfy cabins, warm meals and this laboratory space.
In the lab, we inject our glass bottle with carbon dioxide that carries an isotopic tracer. If cyanobacteria grow, their cells will incorporate this isotopic marker.
We had a little help to formulate our questions and experiments. University of Minnesota students attending summer field courses collected decades worth of data in Itasca State Park. A diligent university librarian digitized thousands of those students’ final papers.
My students and I pored over the papers concerning Deming Lake, many of which tried to determine whether the cyanobacteria in the chlorophyll-rich layer are doing photosynthesis. While most indicated yes, those students were measuring only oxygen and got ambiguous results. Our use of the isotopic tracer is trickier to implement but will give clearer results.
Graduate students Michelle Chamberlain and Zackry Stevenson about to sink the bottles for incubation in Deming Lake. Elizabeth Swanner, CC BY-ND
That afternoon, we’re back on the lake. We toss an anchor; attached to its rope is a clear plastic bag holding the sealed bottles of lake water now amended with the isotopic tracer. They’ll spend the night in the chlorophyll-rich layer, and we’ll retrieve them after 24 hours. Any longer than that and the isotopic label might end up in the bacteria that eat the dying cyanobacteria instead of the cyanobacteria themselves. We tie off the rope to a floating buoy and head back to the station’s dining hall for our evening meal.
Iron, chlorophyll, oxygen
The next morning, as we wait for the bottles to finish their incubation, we collect water from the different layers of the lake and add some chemicals that kill the cells but preserve their bodies. We’ll look at these samples under the microscope to figure out how many cyanobacteria are in the water, and we’ll measure how much iron is inside the cyanobacteria.
That’s easier said than done, because we have to first separate all the “needles” (cyanobacteria) from the “hay” (other cells) and then clean any iron off the outside of the cyanobacteria. Back at Iowa State University, we’ll shoot the individual cells one by one into a flame that incinerates them, which liberates all the iron they contain so we can measure it.
Biogeochemist Katy Sparrow rows a research vessel to shore. Elizabeth Swanner, CC BY-ND
Our scientific hunch, or hypothesis, is that the cyanobacteria that live in the chlorophyll- and iron-rich layer will contain more iron than cyanobacteria that live in the top lake layer. If they do, it will help us establish that greater access to iron is a motive for living in that deeper and dimmer layer.
These experiments won’t tell the whole story of why it took so long for Earth to build up oxygen, but they will help us to understand a piece of it – where oxygen might have been produced and why, and what happened to oxygen in that environment.
Deming Lake is quickly becoming its own attraction for those with a curiosity about what goes on beneath its tranquil surface – and what that might be able to tell us about how new forms of life took hold long ago on Earth.
I thought it very worthwhile to repeat this, plus a real treat at the end of the post!
Scamming in all its forms has only got worse in the last couple of years, since I parted with $9,000 in 2021!
As a direct result of that error, I changed my bank, installed a VPN at home (Proton), changed my email account to ProtonMail, and also changed my calendar (also to Proton).
But I still do not take it as important as it is. I guess because it is not my first thought whenever I come across an unfamiliar email.
ooOOoo
Please read this; and do not make the same mistake as me!
The Story of a Scam
(or how I lost the thick end of $10,000.)
On Friday, 6th August, 2021 at 05:51 in came the following email:
Norton Customer ,
User name:paulhandover
*we like to confim you that the NortonDesk re-newal. has been done on your request*
It is very easy to unsubscribe it,
and related to your any query, reach us at +1-(860) – (852) – (6259).
Product-Name : NortonDesk
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Price : $475.04
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Subscription ID : 8837-77942826-947192-8126
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Expiration Date : 3 Year from the Date of Purchase
………………………………………………………………………………………………
* If you wish to Cancel this Membership then please feel free to Contact our Billing department as soon as Possible*
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
*Please do not write to this mail address, that will not help*
Reach us on +1 – (860) – (852) – (6259)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Regards,
Billing department
Contact: +1 – (860) – (852) – (6259)
693 Amwell Rd, Hillsborough, NJ
My first mistake was not to check the incoming email address. It was mahaliashomakerxhv928@gmail.com
I telephoned the number given and told the person that I wanted to cancel this membership. Indeed that I had never subscribed for this membership in the first place.
I spoke with ‘Adam’. I was then asked to go to a webpage where I filled in a Refund Application Order form. I filled in my details including the refund amount and my bank details: Sort Code & Account Number.
I then submitted the form and imagine my surprise when a few minutes later I was informed that I had received the sum of $10,000. I quickly checked our bank account online and there was the $10,000 credit in our checking account.
My second mistake was me not examining the total in our accounts. I have the facility to show the total funds in our accounts. Why I didn’t do that I can not explain.
Then it was back on the telephone and Adam also was surprised (later I realised that this was a feigned surprise and all part of the scam) and said could I go to the bank and fill in an International Wire Transfer for the amount of $9,500. Adam also said that he would give me the details of the person in Thailand that was to receive the funds, and could I say this was for a medical operation because it would save ‘Norton’ the taxation.
My third mistake was not to discuss this with Jeannie and to assume that it was just a harmless error.
The details came through and I went to our bank in Grants Pass. I got to the bank a little after 09:00. I saw a staff member of the bank and explained what I needed to do. The bank member queried this and said that it sounded like a scam. I lied and said I knew the woman in Thailand and wanted to go ahead. That was what I had been instructed to say.
My fourth mistake was not listening to the woman at the bank. (And I still thought that the ‘Norton’ funds were in my account.)
The International Wire Transfer was completed and I signed it. I also asked the balances on our two accounts. It was about $10,000 less than I expected and I queried it but was told that there had been a transfer from my savings account to my checking account of $10,000 for Norton. I thought that this was still a little low but that I could check it carefully once I got home. I had a thirty-minute window to change my mind.
Mistake number five, a huge mistake, was while at the bank not to ask them carefully to go through all my transactions that day because that would have revealed that the receipt of $10,000 that I had seen online had mysteriously disappeared. Indeed had never been received. That would have enabled me to stop the wire transfer within the thirty-minute window.
I returned home and found out the truth. I had been scammed out of $9,500.
The strange thing was that ‘Adam’ of the billing department of so-called Norton kept ringing me throughout the day to say that the funds would be sent back to me and gave me the details of three wires and that the funds would be back in my bank account on Monday, 9th August!
Later that morning I rang Kevin Dick who manages our investments and told him the tale. He said that there was a huge amount of scamming about and that I should make three phone calls: to the bank and report the fraud; to the Sheriff’s office and report the fraud; and to my insurance company. The first two were done straight away. Kevin also told me to close my bank accounts and amend my email address. Alex, my son, said to use my Proton mail account and straight away I started to make the change.
A person from the humanists group that we belong to said also to inform The Daily Courier.
On Monday morning Ryan of ‘Norton’ called me at 07:15 and said that Adam Prescott was no longer with the firm. Ryan said that their General Manager, Ron Cooper, would call me shortly. Ron did indeed call me and said that they would return the money but that the minimum cheque they could write was $30,000. I was then told that in advance of me receiving the money I would have to pay a small amount to them. At this point I put the phone down for it was clearly a second attempt to steal more funds from me.
Finally we went back to the bank on Monday morning. We were informed that there was never a credit of $10,000 but that a clever switch of the money from one account to another made it look as though the money had been credited. The event had been reported to the bank’s fraud department.
On Tuesday morning, the 10th August, the bank said that as well as our two accounts being locked out from us and that only cheques and cash withdrawals would be honoured for the time being, the fraud department had made the decision to issue us with a ten-day notice to terminate our accounts. In other words, within ten days the bank would no longer want us as customers. Since then I have done much research and found out via the Forbes website that this was more to do with the bank being ultra conservative than anything else. Indeed Kevin said that he had spoken with his IT department and they thought that it was strange that my ex-bank had terminated us so quickly. The IT department thought that the teller at the bank realised that she had been partly culpable.
However the bank did recommend another bank to go to in Grants Pass.
I have since reset my iMac and changed my email address.
It is a most humiliating affair. I have beaten myself up several times over and have at last understood the frame of mind that I had gotten myself into.
To explain that, first of all I thought that I needed to stop the billing urgently and because it was early on a Friday morning thought that the best thing to do was to call immediately.
Secondly, during the call that scammers spoke to me in friendly tones and quietly complimented me on my integrity. I am sure that this ‘spoke’ to my psychological fear of rejection that I have had since I my father died in 1956.
Then in the morning of the 11th August I received a call from a regular contact at the English company who manage my UK SIPP. He wanted to check if I had tried to log on at 09:00 UK time and I replied that there was no way that was me for that UK time was 01:00 Pacific time. There were apparently three attempts to log on. Unsuccessfully as it turned out and my SIPP account is temporarily closed as a result.
The scammers are very thorough in their crooked craft!
Now as of Thursday, the 12th August, we are pretty much out of the grim shadow of this event. We have new accounts at The People’s Bank here in Grants Pass. I have changed my email address and yesterday afternoon I decided that the only safe way of protecting myself was to get another iMac. I was speaking to the sales department of Apple and mentioned the scam and the woman immediately said I should speak with their Technical Support and transferred me. Then I was helped via screen sharing to go through many pages deleting unnecessary files and other stuff. And the helpful woman found another item of malware that was deleted and removed. She spent 54 minutes getting me properly cleaned out and then forwarded an email with all the links for me to do the same process at a later date. It was a superb experience.
So that is it.
Now watch these two YouTube videos. The first is just 5 minutes long and is important to all who use computers and want to be protected against scammers. (NB: This first video is now not included.)
and then watch this slightly longer video from Jim
Be safe! Please!
An addendum dated Saturday, 14th August, at 7am Pacific Time.
Only to say that I also posted my scamming report on Ugly HedgeHog under their General Chit Chat forum. Of the many responses that came in I wanted to post here two of them.
The first from ‘Stanikon’:
Sorry you had to go through this. Your first clue should have been the grammar and phrasing of the original email. That would have given it away. Legitimate companies go to great lengths to make sure their grammar, phrasing and language are correct. I have avoided several scams by paying attention to that so there is some value in being slightly OCD.
and the second from ‘Red6’:
The safest thing to do in these situations is simply not to open the email. I receive on a daily basis, emails telling me that the items I ordered are being shipped, my subscription to something has been renewed etc, etc. 99.9% of these are scams and nothing bad will happen if you just delete them. Older working people often have the fear that there’s a bill out there that has not been paid and they are afraid of getting a bad credit report. So they aggressively try to send someone money for something they cannot even recognize. If it is a true debt, you will be reminded of it several times before any reports are made.
I follow several simple rules in preventing scams. There are many more but this will take care of most of them.
1. Examine the sender’s email address, if you do not recognize it then DO NOT OPEN and DELETE immediately. Most of these scammer’s email addresses will not have the company name in the email address OR it will be combined with other names. Most will not have the .com, .org, etc but will be gmail, Hotmail, or other generic URL. Many of these scammers “broadcast” their emails to everyone on a purchased email list not knowing whether some or valid or not. If you open or reply to these it verifies your email as valid and active and worthy of more attention. Also, if it is an unknown email address, it could be a carrier of a virus or some other bad computer/software infection.
2. If you do get involved with something that does not feel right and you take it to the bank – TRUST THE BANK if they tell you it is suspicious. They see these things every day and develop a feel for them. I received a cashier’s check for something I sold on craigslist. I took it to the bank to deposit and the bank rep immediately recognized the cashier’s check as a fake. She even called the bank the check was supposed to be drawn on and they checked the records and told her that it was counterfeit. You trust your bankers, credit union, etc with your money every day so trust them when they tell you something does not seem right.
3. Scammers know that many older people do NOT like to use credit cards. So a lot of their dealings involve checks, bank transfers, and other forms of older less secure payment methods that older citizens are comfortable with. I NEVER, NEVER send money for something I purchase or order online unless it is through a credit card. In fact, I rarely buy ANYTHING anymore that does not go on the credit card. They are safer, quicker, and easier. If somehow you do get something on your bill that you did not authorize, the credit card company will investigate and go after the person or company that charged you. This is one more safety step that protects the consumer. This does not always apply to debit cards. Debit cards are issued by individual banks or credit unions and some have policies in the fine print that they do NOT have the same policies as the big credit card companies and may not forgive or relieve the user for bad charges made to their debit card.
4. Just do not believe anyone or any company that says they sent you a huge refund or overpayment or some amount of money by mistake. That rarely happens. It is even rarer if they also tell you to return the money to some foreign address, email, or wire transfer. When in doubt, wait for a week or so before you do ANYTHING. If they sent you the check, transfer etc, wait to see if it clears or is valid. We are conditioned by TV and movies that we need to act immediately in situations such as this. This is rarely the case. Take time to see what happens. During this cooling-off period check them out, research the internet to see if others have experienced this scam. It is almost a sure thing that if you are being scammed, others have been also and it has been reported somewhere with law enforcement agencies or on websites on the internet. Check them out before acting. Or better yet, do nothing for a while and most likely they will just go away. Much like the telephone scammers, they make their money on volume, calling as many as possible in the least amount of time. Scammers will not waste time working on you for days, they have thousands of other emails, accounts to call. Remember, they are after the fastest, easiest targets – the low-hanging fruit.
If it is a true mistake or debt you owe then most likely you will receive some official correspondence in regards to the debt. A good example is the IRS and Social Security phone scams in the past couple of years. You get a call from the IRS or Social Security informing you that you may have committed fraud and law enforcement is on their way to arrest you. But if you arrange repayment with their representative, an arrest can be avoided. The IRS and Social Security NEVER take action without first sending several official US Postal letters to you. If you are still inclined to send money to someone in a foreign country then discuss it with your bank and listen.
Hope this helps.
ooOOoo
All very sound advice and as relevant today as it was when first published.
Finally, for something completely different; have a look at the recent Hunter’s Moon as featured on YouTube.
Learning from Dogs 