WildClickers #72: Green, the color of life

1 Aktbird57 .. 1509 56.379 acres

Short and sweet, ehBeth.

gotta beat the heat

Click.

Green light for readers:
2006 World eBook Fair Collections

Free Access to the public from July 4th to August 4th, in celebration of Project Gutenberg's 35th Birthday
Link

Now that's a link!

Thanks ul. I love Project Gutenberg.

aktbird57 - You and your 298 friends have supported 2,457,495.1 square feet!

Marine Wetlands habitat supported: 119,469.3 square feet.
You have supported: (0.0)
Your 298 friends have supported: (119,469.3)

American Prairie habitat supported: 53,653.1 square feet.
You have supported: (13,180.1)
Your 298 friends have supported: (40,473.0)

Rainforest habitat supported: 2,284,372.8 square feet.
You have supported: (171,633.9)
Your 298 friends have supported: (2,112,738.8)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 Aktbird57 .. 56.413 acres
2 37.755 acres

~~~~~


yeahhhhhhhhhh wildclickers!

Oh, ul, thank you for the link. I will be busy for awhile. That is the greatest thing in the world - the sharing of information by communication with others. It is the thing that has allowed our progression.

WILDCLICKERS !!!!!
We have clicked saving - - - ahem, 139.34 Hectares.

Great clicking ya'll..........big grin

It really sounds better when expressed in hectares doesn't it....

Our bath scales do the same for us - it weighs in English Stones......!! Sure sounds better to be FIFTEEN Stones than 210 pounds........ grin

Great link, indeed! Thanx, Ul!

Great link, Ul. Do I have to purchase an ebook reader?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/05/AR2006070501414.html?referrer=email

Acid Oceans
Scientists identify another potentially devastating consequence of failing to control greenhouse gases.

Thursday, July 6, 2006; A20



YOU'D THINK that the threat to the Earth's climate posed by greenhouse gas emissions would be enough to get policymakers to take seriously the need to reduce human use of fossil fuels. Rising sea levels, reduced polar ice and dramatic regional climate shifts represent serious dangers to the way of life of large swaths of the world's population. Now a new report by a group of federal scientists and university researchers highlights a different threat posed by carbon emissions, one with its own set of potentially devastating ecological consequences: the increasing acidity of the oceans.

Ocean water absorbs a huge amount of the carbon emitted by human energy use -- so much that it has long been seen as a kind of buffer mitigating global climate change, which is triggered by the presence of that carbon in the atmosphere. But it turns out that oceanic absorption of carbon is not an unqualified good. All that carbon seems to be making the waters more acidic, a trend researchers believe will continue as concentrations increase. This chemical change, in turn, inhibits the ability of animals that produce external shells-- particularly corals and certain planktons -- to grow them efficiently. As these animals are some of the basic life forms of ocean ecosystems, substantially reducing their productivity could have enormous impact on life in the seas, from devastating already-stressed coral reefs to interrupting the food chain for large fish and whales.

There's a tendency in discussing carbon emissions for policymakers to be paralyzed by the enormity of the problem. The hypothesized consequences to climate and the oceans are vast -- literally earth-changing -- and the cause is so inherent to the way industrialized societies live that the problem seems unsolvable. When combined with the inevitable scientific uncertainty associated with modeling the future of terribly complex systems, this leads some people to active denial and many others to resist responsible steps to begin getting carbon under control. Admittedly, these steps, even if taken aggressively, will not be sufficient to decrease atmospheric carbon but can only, for now, slow its rate of increase. But the paralysis has to end. While there still exist big questions surrounding climate change and carbon emissions, the best evidence all points in a single direction: that failing to reduce dependence on fossil fuels will have terrible consequences, and failing to start now will make the disruption later all the more painful.

That's scary, sumac. It's our grandkids who will suffer most.

all clicked.

Click-

Saving ebooks and articles for a rainy day.

Ul,
Are you just saving them as .pdf documents to your computer, or saving them to discs?

Some more fascinating articles from recent publications.

Green group buys out fishermen to protect ocean floor


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060704-1524-ca-agr-fishermanbuyout.html


By Marcus Wohlsen
ASSOCIATED PRESS

3:24 p.m. July 4, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - For four generations, Geoff Bettencourt's family has fished the waters off Half Moon Bay by dragging heavy nets across the ocean floor to scoop up the sole and cod that feed there.
But Bettencourt may soon sell his right to trawl the sea - not to another fisherman, but to environmentalists.

The Nature Conservancy announced last week that it had bought six federal trawling permits and four trawling vessels from fishermen in Morro Bay, about halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Now the international environmental group best known for buying development rights from farmers is looking to strike similar deals with fisherman up the coast, including Bettencourt.
The tactic, designed to reward fisherman for forgoing fishing methods that can damage sensitive marine ecosystems, reflects the Conservancy's new, cooperative strategy for protecting the ocean. A contrast to earlier environmental campaigns that some fishermen saw as a financial burden, the group's offer has been well-received, according to Bettencourt.

"They didn't come in saying they hate fishermen," he said.

The Nature Conservancy says its acquisitions represent the nation's first private buy-out of Pacific fishing vessels and permits for conservation purposes. Financial details weren't disclosed, but each fisherman received "several hundred thousand dollars a piece," said Chuck Cook, director of the organization's California coastal and marine program.

"You don't try to punish the fisherman for trying to be good stewards of the ocean," Cook said. "You try to provide economic incentives for treating the habitats and fisheries well."

Fishermen and environmentalists involved in the agreement also persuaded federal fishery managers to ban bottom trawling on nearly 4 million acres of ocean off California's Central Coast.

Federal regulators have declared eight species of West Coast groundfish as overfished. The areas protected as part of the deal include vast undersea canyons near Monterey Bay, Big Sur, and Point Conception.

Bottom trawlers draw large, weighted nets across the sea bed to collect a variety of groundfish. Prized California species include seafood staples like black cod, rock cod, flounder, and Dover sole.

The practice also can damage sensitive habitats by crushing and burying large swaths of coral, rocky reefs, and other habitat vital to undersea life, according to a 2002 National Academy of Sciences study.

Trawl nets also can kill large volumes of fish the fisherman were not intending to catch. A typical three-day trawler trip can yield 50 thousand pounds of fish. Thousands more pounds of unwanted fish and other sea life caught in trawler nets also get thrown overboard before the boats return to shore.

Morro Bay fishermen have trawled the Pacific since at least the 1950s, but the industry there has fallen on hard times.

The high cost of coastal real estate and a shrinking fleet have forced seafood processors and other port businesses to leave Morro Bay, while fishermen say higher shipping costs have eaten into their profits.

Some fishermen also blame heavy environmental regulations for making their jobs harder, said Jeremiah O'Brien, president of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's Organization.

But the Nature Conservancy deal gives fishermen another chance at success while allowing them to pursue more profitable, less destructive forms of fishing, O'Brien said.

"They will probably use this money to buy other boats," he said.

Fishermen who sold permits to the Conservancy have agreed not to re-enter trawl fisheries, according to the group.

The Conservancy plans to retool some Morro Bay trawlers for use in ocean research, clean-up, or law enforcement. Older vessels too worn for repair could end up as scrap.

The acquired permits are set to remain shelved for now. But the Conservancy may lease them back to fishermen in the future on the condition they use techniques other than bottom trawling to catch fish.

The group is now negotiating similar buy-out agreements with fishermen in Monterey Bay and Half Moon Bay, where more than a dozen trawlers still work coastal waters.

Still, others said the group will only convince fishermen to sell out if the group promises to keep fisheries economically as well as ecologically viable.

Giuseppe Pennisi, 67, has fished the waters near Monterey Bay for 51 years. Five of his six sons still fish. The other was lost at sea.

For now, Pennisi is holding on to his trawling permit.

"We're a fishing family," he said. "For us to do something drastic, it has to be a good business proposition."

Astonishing.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/uof-mit070506.php

Medium is the message for stem cells in search of identities
Common culturing surface shown to change fate of stem cells

GAINESVILLE, Fla. - Embryonic stem cells, prized for their astonishing ability to apparently transform into any kind of cell in the body, acquire their identities in part by interacting with their surroundings - even when they are outside of the body in a laboratory dish, University of Florida scientists report.
Using an animal model of embryonic stem cell development, researchers with UF's McKnight Brain Institute have begun to answer one of the most fundamental questions in science - how does a batch of immature cells give rise to an organ as extraordinarily complex as the human brain?

The findings, to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may one day help scientists create laboratory environments to grow specialized cells that can be transplanted into patients to treat epilepsy, Parkinson's, Huntington's and Alzheimer's diseases or other brain disorders.

Scientists observed that when embryonic stem cells from mice were plated on four different surfaces in cell culture dishes, specific types of cells would arise.

"The medium and the molecular environment influence the fate of the cell," said Dennis Steindler, Ph.D., executive director of the McKnight Brain Institute. "We simulated some events that occur while the brain is developing and challenged them with different environments, and the effects are profound. Ultimately both nature and nurture influence the final identity of a stem cell, but in early stages it seems nurture is very important."

In experiments, scientists confirmed a cell culture surface molecule called laminin activates a common developmental pathway that is crucial for the generation and survival of particular types of brain cells.

The laminin-influenced stem cells are a kind that goes on to generate a brain structure called the medial ganglionic eminence, which in turn is believed to give rise to a population of early neurons in the developing cerebral cortex, a structure that helps coordinate sensory, motor and cognitive function.

"This is significant because this molecule is frequently used to secure cells onto culture dishes in stem cell labs all over the world," said Bjorn Scheffler, M.D., a neuroscientist with UF's College of Medicine. "Everyone believes this molecule is purely growth supportive, but now we've shown it changes the fate of cells it is working with. When you grow the cells in a culture dish you are actually educating them to become something very special."

In that respect, the discovery sheds light on how embryonic stem cells diversify to form various neural structures, one of the fundamental mysteries of brain development, the researchers say.

Since the 1980s, Steindler has studied the effect of certain molecules in the extracellular matrix, a mixture that surrounds developing brain cells. Transiently appearing and disappearing, these molecules apparently cordon the brain into different regions.

If molecules from the matrix activate genes in stem cells responsible for generating neural components, potentially any of the molecules can be tested to find its specific role during development of the brain, according to UF neuroscientist Katrin Goetz, M.D., first author of the paper.

In addition, the discovery reinforces a notion that rodent embryonic stem cell biology can be used to understand basic brain mechanisms, potentially leading to treatments where adult stem cells are taken from patients, cultured and transplanted into damaged brain environments to restore functions lost to disease or injury.

"We largely keep the brain cells we are born with for life, but we also have stem cells in our brain that can divide and make new neurons for maintenance," said Gordon Fishell, Ph.D., a professor of cell biology with the Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine at New York University Medical Center who was not involved in the research. "Stem cells continue to proliferate because they are in a specialized 'niche' that nurtures them and keeps them dividing. Previous studies have shown that factors in the niche are important for stem cell proliferation. Less studied are the means by which these cells are directed to become specific types of neurons useful in the adult brain. This work is the first to systematically look at how components in the extracellular matrix affect the fate of these cells. It seems the niche doesn't just support these cells, it tells them what to become. It educates stem cells for a bright future."


###

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/14968498.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp




Birds going extinct faster than scientists thought, study finds

BY JANE KAY
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

The world's birds are disappearing in greater numbers than previously calculated, and the number of extinctions will grow even more dramatically by the end of the century, according to a grim study published Tuesday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study, the most thorough analysis of global bird species, says 12 percent of existing species -- about 1,250 -- are threatened with extinction by 2100.

Until now, scientists had documented the extinction of about 130 bird species since the year 1500. But the study's authors -- from Stanford University, Duke University and the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis -- say the more accurate estimate is about 500 extinctions out of more than 10,000 known bird species. That would be about one extinction per year over the past 500 years.

And that rate is 100 times higher than what was considered natural before human influence, the study said.

Over time, humans have cleared land for agriculture and other uses. They've hunted birds for food and sport. And they introduced other dangers, such as non-native birds, rats, snakes and diseases. Predictions of increased extinctions over the next century are based on these continuing threats as well as anticipated habitat loss linked to global warming.

The scientists, including conservationist Peter Raven, president of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis, revised the existing extinction estimate to take into account ongoing fossil discoveries of extinct species and missing birds not yet classified as extinct.

Since 1975, 20 species have gone extinct in the wild. But, the good news is that conservation efforts work, Raven said. "There would have been 25 more species gone extinct without the conservation efforts over the past 30 years," he said.

"We depend entirely on other organisms for our continued life on Earth. We're losing the sustainability of Earth," Raven said. "It's in all our art, our history, our legends. If you're spiritual, you can ask: Do we have the right to kill off living things?"

The predominant threat to species now is habitat destruction, the study said. Brazil, where habitat loss has been severe, has 89 species at risk of extinction, including 13 species identified since 1980, according to BirdLife International, a British nonprofit registry of bird species.

Many scientists, including Harvard University entomologist E.O. Wilson, believe that Earth is in the middle of a mass extinction comparable to the one 65 million years ago that wiped out two-thirds of land species, including the dinosaurs.

At the California Academy of Sciences, bird curator Jack Dumbacher said the new extinction estimates are disturbing.

"Birds are an important component of our ecosystem. They keep mice and rats in control and eat insects that attack crops. They are food for other organisms and create habitat for other organisms. They disperse seeds and pollen. There are cases on islands when birds go extinct that the trees also go extinct," Dumbacher said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

sue, thanks for the news!

Hurray! The Ocean Conservancy doing a fantastic job!

Today i awoke to the sounds of workers! Ya all recall my telling you bout the damaged wall that sits behind the garage. Well, yesterday daughter sent pics to her hubby - and this morning, s.i.l's work crew arrived, and they're in the process of removing 4 feet of hill, installing new drainage, and by the end of the day, the hill will be shored with a brand new wall!

What a wonderful surprise!

I hope National Geographic lets me print this image. If not, you can see it by the link. It's real cute. This month's National Geographic has an article about how the US is loving its coastlines to death.

Good for you and the wall, Stradee.

I forgot to try to post the image and the story.

Glorious photo at full article here: Land on the Edge

Not quite a contrarian view, but a different viewpoint.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789_pf.html



Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth

By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A13



"Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . . Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national hypocrisy.''

-- This column, July 1997

Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I've never quoted myself at length, but here it's necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me explain.

From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.

Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways: Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China, for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections cited above come from the report).

The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent -- and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere. Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables" (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.

Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.

Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45 percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is uncertain; so are the consequences.

I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.

No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something." The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.

Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global warming. They're public relations exercises and -- if they impose costs -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It's an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?

The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.