The Tundra

The tundra is an incredible place, unlike any other biome one may come across. It is usually pictured covered in snow, as it is for 9 or 10 months a year, giving the impression of a perpetual blizzard. In reality though, the tundra is more akin to a frozen desert; the permafrost found in most of the tundras hold on to the less than 10 inches of precipitation and keep the ground covered, if not merely rock hard.

In addition, the sparse species of animal life and some 1,700 plants must be very strong and durable to survive the harsh conditions. The tundra is host to common sub-zero Celsius temperatures, strong winds, and low sunlight, all coupled with the lack of precipitation discussed above. This leaves the environment very weak, especially during the (slightly) warmer summers when the permafrost melts, creating large lakes and saturating the active layer of the soil (all layers underneath still remain frozen).

Because species must be so strong, only a few can survive, resulting in a rather simple food chain, the cornerstone of which is the lemming and other small animals. This is so because the lemming is one of the few herbivores, along with the snowshoe rabbit. Their population swells and thins out depending on the amount of available vegetation. 1,700 species of plants is not very much at all, and growth is often inhibited by the frozen ground. The herbivores provide food for larger carnivores, like wolverines and artic foxes; thus, when there are many herbivores, there are more carnivores. Snow geese have been theorized to create problems in this food chain; their survival rate is very high and are destroying arctic wetlands and eating much of the available plant life.

The relative weakness of this biome makes it prime for human effects; tundra driven over by tanks in World War 2 now have new ponds and bogs, as the tire tracks left imprints and gradually expanded. This shows the need for the tundra ecosystem to be preserved and its delicacy respected. However, in Siberia, this has not been the case.

Tundras in general are suffering from global warming. Permafrost is the key to its cyclical nature, and animals that migrate to the tundra in the summer, which many do, would largely be effected negatively. In addition, foreign plant life might invade and take over from the indigenous vegetation. Animals adapted to yearly life in the tundra, such as muskox, would not be able to handle the heat.

Specifically, though, Siberia is need of our attention. In WW2, many factories operated near Lake Baikal (pictured above) but are now closed. That problem has been reopened by the construction of a paper mill in 1966 that dumps its runoff into the lake. This lake is one of the oldest on earth and holds much extraordinary life. In fact, it has an incredile expanse of biodiveristy unmatched by almost any other lake, most of it endemic. It also contains about 1/5th of the world’s fresh water. Fortunately, thanks to the action of every day citizens, an oil pipeline which would come rather close to the lake has been scheduled to be constructed elsewhere.

Tundras are also being eyed for oil exploration, which obviously poses a signifcant threat to this delicate area. THis furthers the need for new, VIABLE (see my blog on ethanol) fuel sources. Drilling in the tundra would absolutely devastate the ecology and I wouldn’t find it surprising if it were the cause for this biome’s extinction. Yet, people still think with their wallets; they are willing to displace species, kill plant life, and rip through the fiber of the arctic just to make some very rich people more wealthy.

Allow me to step outside my objective standpoint for a minute and say that the tundra is absolutely breathtaking. Whenver I think about it, all I can think of is the purity and silence of it all. To me, that is truly amazing in our modern world of pollution and cell phones. I firmly believe that we must work hardest to keep this area alive and keep its delicate balance. It just seems that nowhere else on earth can one find a mossy plain with snowcapped mountains… its almost like you can see the crisp air in every photo. After researching the tundra thoroughly, it has become a dream of mine to take a trip on the Trans-Siberia train and visit Lake Baikal. Its astounding that such a lake exists, but even more astounding that some people ar ewilling to use it for their own gain.

Some great earth pictures

Just to see where we really are:

source: http://www.bored-night.com/?p=208

The Watercone!

The Watercone is an ingenious device that can take salty water and turn it into fresh water using only the power of the sun. The nice thing about this device is it is bone simple, uses the sun instead of fossil fuel, and is cheap to make and easy to use.

The Watercone is surprisingly a cone, that you place over a pan of salty water (or over a marsh, or any damp ground) leave it out in the sun, water evaporates, the condensation trickles down the side of the cone, at the end of the day you flip it over, remove the cap at the top and drink the water.

This device has the potential to really do a lot of good for a lot of people. So many people live in areas where the ground water has been polluted by salt incursion due to over pumping, or in areas that simply don’t have large fresh water sources (south pacific islands, sub-Saharan Africa, south-east Asia). The Watercone is made from UV resistant plastic and they claim that it will last up to five years, after which it can be used to collect rainwater and funnel it into bottles.

They claim that on average one Watercone can produce one liter of water per-day. I could image a whole fleet of these things for a village. They float, so you could place them over a small pool of salt water and just collect fresh water all day. At about 20 Euros it would pay for itself in a couple of months and provide potable water for the next 4-5 years. It is also recyclable and non-flammable.

The Watercone website has some really interesting information and I highly recommend checking it out.

1. Much cheaper than bottled water.
Watercone life expectancy: 3 to 5 years. Price: planned below € 20.- Average Price of 1 liter of bottled water in developing countries: $US 0,50. Presuming a daily usage of the Watercone and a daily average yield of 1 liter, the Watercone has paid for itself in about 2 mounth and will work for free the next 5-7 years!

2. Absolutely, low concept and low tech.
As opposed to other types of solar stills which feature electronics, photo-voltaic cells, tubes, filters, many parts, etc. the Watercone concept is understood within seconds with absolutely no need for academic background. Additionally it (cone & pan) is made from Bayer Makrolon, a high-tech ultra-rugged and highly recyclable polycarbonate, virtually insensitive to UV exposure or breakage, an all too common result of rough transport.

3. Perfect for coastal dwellers.
There are at least 50 sunny, developing countries worldwide with a significant amount of sea- or coastline. Many from their populations, hundreds of millions, live in nearest proximity to water but cannot drink it or use it for agriculture, because it is saltwater. Large families, hamlets, villages could all experience dramatically improved quality of life starting from as little as a dozen Watercones set up close by the sea.

4. Perfect for medical purposes.
There are thousands of hospitals in developing countries, field and mobile hospitals, first aid and emergency medical units around the world that are located in sunny climates and lack condensed water. Outfitted with just a dozen Watercones, a little field hospital could harvest 15 liters of condensed water per day. More than enough to make a difference for life or death.

5. Creates jobs.
For centuries water vendors have walked the markets of hamlets, villages and cities around the world, mostly in Africa, the Mid East and Asia. Based in the vicinity of salt or brackish water and outfitted with a minor credit line, these vendors could invest in a dozen Watercones and sell 15 liters of water a day and have their investment returned in no more than half a year.

 

 

Pretty damn useful if its viable.

Food for thought

I found this article rather interesting…

 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. “This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers’ specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

“We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events,” said co-author Singer. “On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted.”

“Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people,” says Avery. “It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease.” “There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders,” says Singer. “However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause.” He noted that about 70 percent of the earth’s post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California’s Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today’s tree line.

Singer emphasized, “Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth’s climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers’ names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

Source:http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

 

 

That’s quite a substantial find. It really shows you can never be sure of anything…

 

Now, I highly doubt anyone is going say excess carbon emissions are good for our environment, but this “new” evidence being brought to light is pretty thought provoking. Read it over twice.

A quick lesson in economics

Does Ethanol Pollute More than Gasoline?

An Expert Reveals the Facts

Octane (n-dodecane): C12H26 + 18.5 O2 → 12 CO2 + 13 H2O 18.5 x energy units. Glucose via ethanol: Glucose 2 C6H12O6 → 4 CO2 + 4 C2H5OH   Ethanol: 4 C2H5OH + 12 O2 → 8 CO2 + 12 H2O   2 C6H12O6 + 12 O2 → 12 CO2 + 12 H2O 12.0 x energy units

Congratulations, Cristina Liesia, you have successfully confused the hell out of me

Global warming!! Yes, here is another discussion of our favorite subject, or rather a side issue thereof… like all discussions pertinent to the topic. In any case, here’s what’s on today’s agenda.

We have Cristina Liesia, a scientist who began to study lawns and their environmental effects not too long ago. She has done alot, ALOT, of research into the area. A little too much, methinks. Going into great detail, Ms. Liesia points out the following:

a) Italians do not care about their lawns, for unbeknownst reasons. Perhaps they are too busy desgining fashionwear. Regardless, this lack of lawncare is favorable to us, presumably, and I will discuss why shortly.

b) Lawns require alot of water to maintain as we have them. This is wasteful.

c) There are more lawns then corn farms.

d) Subsequently, lawns require alot of water. This is wasteful.

e) There are alot of citie- I mean, “impervious surfaces.” These surfaces do not absorb water. Because they are mostly concrete.

f) Too much carbon is bad.

Ok, fair enough. Nonetheless, this article came more as a dull thud to the skull then a shock. I appreciate the creation of physical data that people should water logically, keep some trees (they use about 2% of the carbon lawns do), and be conscious of other lawn care concerns, like grass clippings, but I thought this was pretty well known without this data.

Here’s where things get a bit hazy for me…

Liesia says that the potential 3.68×10^10 pounds of carbon created by lawns is unacceptable. Agreed. But she recommends using less fertilizer, matching watering with evaporation rates, and leaving the lawn clippings to recycle on the grass. As you can see, this option performs well according to the graph. But at the end, for total carbon storage, it fares in the middle of the pack.

Now I begin to question my own sanity.

I thought the goal was to have less carbon storage, which would mean watering consistently, taking away your clipping, and fertilizing alot is best. But that can’t be right… we were told the opposite. I understood what I was reading when I was being told what the data said, until I saw what the data said. Now I’m plain lost. I can’t decide if I’m graphically retarded or if this scientist is contradicting herself…

Thus, I am forced to draw my conclusions from my self. Of course we should conserve water and of course we should watch our carbon levels. Of course we should avoid virgin soil epidemics in the form of exotic vegetation. Really, what I took away most from this article was merely its central point: lawns are part of the global warming picture, too. Other than that, here’s what I already knew:

a) People are idiots. After or during a severe thunderstorm, I constantly observe people and businesses WATERING THEIR LAWNS.

b) There are more civilians than corn farmers.

c) Trees are good for our air.

d) People are idiots. They are constantly removing trees despite alternatives.

e) I don’t like people obsessed with lawn upkeep. I would like to thank the author for giving me grounds to dislike these people. They are creepy.

When it comes down to it, our government has the obligation to enforce watering and planting restrictions (did I just agree with the man?). People, do whatever you want when it doesn’t effect me. But when I have to purify salt water just because you really, REALLY, REALLY LIKE kentucky bluegrass and cute hedges, it becomes my problem. And when MY trees won’t grow because your bluegrass is overtaking the country side… I think you get it.

PS. My apologies for the late blog… blame Comcast and their inability to give me reliable internet service.

PPS. Next blog: Comcast is causing global warming.