Getting Out: Prospect Heights Trail Toward Wolverine Peak

Easy access to Alaska is the reason I live here.  But we've been spending a lot of time getting the house back to 'nice' - freshly painted, new front steps that aren't cracking and threatening come apart, and shedding stuff that's collected over the years.  Mostly we're down to stuff that has sentimental value.  Things that are connected to people we like or remind of us when we were one place or another.

But it was just too nice today and I'm determined to get my money's worth for the State Parks Pass on both cars this year - that means about 20 trips would cover the $5 parking fee at most state park parking lots.  

So even though it's Sunday, we headed for Prospect Heights trailhead to go up the Wolverine Peak trail.  I wanted to get to the rock just above treeline that's been a landmark in family pictures since we started hiking Anchorage - our first full summer 1978.   
The parking lot, which is more than double the size since we got here, was crowded, but with a few spaces when we got there about 12:30pm.  



































This is the south fork of Campbell Creek from the bridge.  This creek then wanders through the Campbell Tract, south of Tudor to Campbell Creek Park, then on past the Arctic Roadrunner to Taku Creek and on west to the Inlet.  And it wanders through various posts in this blog as I post pictures from the trail along the creek.  But it's much wilder here on the mountain headed down to flatter terrain.

J stopped at the fork in the trail where you decide between Near Peak and Wolverine Peak.  I wanted to get up to "the rock."  I'm guessing the rock is roughly 3 miles in, from the fork, starting to get much steeper.

My sense is that this rock used to be up above all the brushy area, pretty much out on its own in the tundra.  But in this picture you can see the brushy stuff going well past the rock on the left.  When we got home I went looking through early photo albums looking for this same picture.  I'm sure there are a number of them somewhere.  What I found was a picture of the rock, May 1979 looking up toward Wolverine Peak.

It's pretty much tundra around the rock, though the right side (left side on the previous picture) is cut off.  I did also take a picture today looking up, but from from the rock or a little above it.

I used a wide angle lens for the picture today, so it look a bit more stretched out, but it's essentially the same picture (but without the rock).  Trees and brush have crept up the mountain as the climate has warmed since the 1979 picture.  I can't say when in May the top picture was, but things hadn't greened yet and there was a lot more snow.  The little guy is in shorts, so I'm guessing it was later in May rather than earlier.  Some now used to last most, if not all the summer, on the mountains.  And we used to hike through snow patches on the way up to Wolverine Peak.  Here it is early June - and we had a relative late (for recent years) spring - and there's not much snow left.

And the Labrador tea flowers were beginning to bloom.

Hiking uses different muscles than biking.  I can feel them.  I need to do this much more often.

Plant Trees While You Browse, But Does It Really Work?

Someone in Holland got here (this blog) via a browser called "Ecosia."  I'd never heard of it before so I checked it out.

The image isn't too clear, but if you click on it you'll get to Ecosia search engine and you can play around there to find out more about what they're about.

For those wondering why planting trees is a good thing, here's a list of reasons from ClimateRally

1. An average size tree creates sufficient oxygen in one year to provide oxygen for a family of four.
2. Planting trees in the right place around buildings and homes can cut air-conditioning costs up to 50 percent. 
3. Planting trees for the environment is good as they are renewable, biodegradable and recyclable. 
4. If we plant 20 million trees, the earth will get with 260 million more tons of oxygen.
5. Once acre of trees can remove up to 2.6 tons of Carbon Dioxide each year.
6. During photosynthesis, trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen.
7. Trees keep in cheek the air and water pollution.
8. Why planting trees is important is evident as they are the natural habitat of the animals and birds, as well as many endangered species.
9. Planting trees means more wood and paper products which can be easily recycled.
10. A newly planted whole forest, can change tons of atmospheric carbon into wood and other fibrous tissue, thus reducing global warming.

Here''s more from Trees Utah.

I was really excited about this, but figured I better do some checking to see how they can do this and whether I can trust them.

Does Ecosia do what it says?

Reviewopedia discusses what Ecosia says about itself, but doesn't seem to have any independent analysis.

Green Review gives a fairly harsh review, saying that Eosia uses Bing, which is owned by Microsoft and that clicks, not searches, generate money for trees.  But only after Microsoft gets its cut. It recommends Google over Ecosia.

A Path Around The World - has a long and thoughtful review.  But it doesn't mention the connection to Bing and Microsoft at all.  But it looks at Ecosia's financial reports (unaudited self-reporting) and does some comparisons of its utility as a browser to Google.

Being ethically responsible isn't easy.  Make your own evaluation.

Enough Cottonwoods? Electronic Health Records, Senior Joy, Climate Illogic

Some reactions to yesterday's Anchorage Daily News.  Nothing earth shattering here.  Don't have time to right now for that.

1.  How essential are electronic health records for treating patients? 

In an article on loss of FCC funding for rural health care, Anchorage Daily News reporter Annie Zak wrote:

"They rely on that connectivity for electronic health records, essential for treating patients."

I remember going to a focus group on electronic health records eleven years ago.  At that time the hospitals here didn't have EHR and were pushing to get them.  And now you can't treat patients without them?  I wonder what all the doctors who practiced medicine before EHR existed would say about this statement  or what all those doctors around the world who don't have electronic health records do?  Shut up shop because they don't have an essential tool for treating patients?

Yes, electronic health records make it easier and faster to get patient medical histories and to share records when referring patients to other doctors.  BUT they are NOT an essential tool for treating patients.  If they are essential in some settings, it's only because hospitals have now made them the only records kept.  But, if worse comes to worse, the doctor can ask the patient like they used to do.  And they also mean that confidential medical records are now highly vulnerable to hackers.  It's not a question of if they are breached, just when.

2.  Does senior joy make older folks irrelevant to the young?

Charles Wohlforth had a piece on Tom Choate who climbed Denali five years ago at age 78.  The article talks about older folks giving up ambition and competitiveness for happiness.  He then writes,

"But Angell noted that his quality [being happy and not competitive)] has the perverse effect [of] getting old people ignored, as if contentment means you don't matter."

He gives an example of being ignored in conversations with younger men.  Wohlforth muses:

"Interesting, isn't it, our tendency to patronize the old as we do the young? It's as if, like children, their joy disqualifies them, indicating they can't understand the true toughness of life. As if they don't know adulthood's difficult struggle for goals and status." 

This seems to me a giant leap to a questionable conclusion.  Is it the joy that disqualifies them?  Is it even joy he means here, or rather contentment?  I suspect other possible explanations.  One, the contented senior doesn't have the need to push himself into the conversation as much.  Or, if it is about the younger men's regard for the older, it's that he's no longer keeping current in all the details they think are important and/or he doesn't have power in the world that matters to them.  This would be more consistent with Wohlforth's earlier (in the article) note that being ignored is a condition shared by women and that form of snubbing is much more about power than it is about joy.


3.  Climate Illogic  

This was a letter to the editor.  It's short.  So I can give you the whole letter:

Is there climate change? Of course. Earth's climate has always been in a state of change. Alaska was once a sub-tropical area that became an arctic environment.
Puny man cannot stop or slow this change. One volcano eruption can put tons of greenhouse gases into the environment. Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas produced by every animal that breathes air. It is used by plants and is needed by them to grow and the plants turn this CO2 back into oxygen that we animals breathe in order to live.
If you want to really make a difference, plant trees, disconnect the natural gas and electricity to your house, throw away your vehicle keys and walk everywhere.
Charles Brobst
Anchorage    [emphasis added]

There's plenty of evidence that while climate has changed over the billions of years of earth's existence, that the last 200 years or so have seen a much more rapid change than in the past and this change coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution.

But that's not my point here.  First Mr. Brobst tells us that "Puny man cannot stop or slow this hang"  and then he makes a list of how 'you' can make a difference (which I take to mean slow the change.)  All the things he lists seem to imply - give up our modern life style.

So I'm guessing he really means to say, "If you want to stop climate change, we have to go back to the StoneAge."  This is not the case.  We just need to find alternative energy sources, cut back in consumption that isn't sustainable, an be willing to explore alternatives to how we live - and the Stone Age isn't the only alternative.  The impacts of climate change - if we do nothing - is clearly problematic for our economy.  The impact of actions to stop climate change actually improve our economy.

4.  People really do hate cottonwoods

In another letter to the editor, Patricia Wells laments to poor state of the Anchorage Coastal Trail - cracking asphalt, trash, leaves piled up on the trail, trees blocking views.  And then she says it:

"Believe me, we do not need any more cottonwood trees."

I get her sentiment - particularly now when the sticky cottonwood catkins pile up on our deck and stick to your feet as you walk on them, using you as their way into your house.  I've written a few posts on cottonwoods. (I just looked - there are 30 posts with the label 'cottonwood.'  Here's one that takes an alternative look at these trees.)  Ultimately, they are huge trees - an anomaly this far north - which grow fast (also an anomaly here) and clean the air, anchor the soil, provide habitat for birds and other animals.  But I get it.  Besides the catkins now, the fluffy cotton will start littering Anchorage later in the summer.

While Trump Cites Eastern Cold To Dispute Climate Change, I Submit California Warmth

Aside from getting stuff cleaned out in my mom's house so that we can have some repair work done, we did make it to the beach Thursday afternoon.  So did a lot of other folks.  I went by bike and the bike trail along the beach was like bike freeway traffic.  There's room - between Venice and Santa Monica for two bikes in each direction.  But there were clots of bikes, motorized scooters, skateboarders (with and without motors), Segways, and other sorts of wheeled transportation that made it necessary to pass.  There's separate pedestrian walkways for part of the distance.  At other points, there's just room for single file pedestrians on the edge of the bike trail, though tourists tend not to realize this or that they are standing in the middle of an active bike trail.

But this post is about the warmth.  It wasn't hot yesterday (in the 70s), but it was just comfortable to lie in the sun and Z and I spent a lot of time playing in the surf.  I had on trunks, and she had on a bathing suit, but for the most part I kept my trunks dry, but I had to pick her up out of the incoming surf a few times to keep her from getting drenched above her thighs.  That's not us, but you get the idea.

And considering it was a Thursday, there were a fair number of folks enjoying the rays.

AND OF COURSE, the cold in the Midwest and the East  and the warmth in LA prove nothing about climate change.  The anecdotal temperatures are weather, not climate.

From NASA (you know those elites who send missions to the moon, Mars, Jupiter, etc. based on so called science):

"The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time."

There's a lot more at the NASA link.

As Stephen Colbert pointed out -

"Global warming isn't real because I was cold today! Also great news: World hunger is over because I just ate."

Political Correctness Republican Style: Ban On Term "Climate Change"

Here's a hypothesis I'm proposing:

When Democrats ask people not to use certain terms and phrases, it tends to be words that are demeaning or hurtful to categories of people.

When Republicans ask people not to use certain terms and phrases, it tends to be words that reflect truths they want to deny.

Is it true or not?  I'm guessing it might be, but I'm starting with way too little real evidence.  But here's just one example:  Expunging 'climate change' in government agencies.

From the Guardian:

"Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead."

From Politico:

"A supervisor at the Energy Department's international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction" or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communication, sources have told POLITICO. 

Employees of DOE’s Office of International Climate and Clean Energy learned of the ban at a meeting Tuesday, the same day President Donald Trump signed an executive order at EPA headquarters to reverse most of former President Barack Obama's climate regulatory initiatives. Officials at the State Department and in other DOE offices said they had not been given a banned words list, but they had started avoiding climate-related terms in their memos and briefings given the new administration's direction on climate change. . . 

A DOE spokeswoman denied there had been a new directive. "No words or phrases have been banned for this office or anyone in the department,” said DOE spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler."

Florida Center For Investigative Reporting:

"The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years. 

But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes. 

DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. 

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department that has about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget."

Fortunately, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) is a Congressional, not Executive, agency, so it, apparently can still write about climate change.  Their report, dated Sept. 28, 2017 doesn't mince words:

"Why GAO Did This Study
Over the last decade, extreme weather and fire events have cost the federal government over $350 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget. These costs will likely rise as the climate changes, according to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. In February 2013, GAO included Limiting the Federal Government's Fiscal Exposure by Better Managing Climate Change Risks on its High-Risk List.
GAO was asked to review the potential economic effects of climate change and risks to the federal government. This report examines (1) methods used to estimate the potential economic effects of climate change in the United States, (2) what is known about these effects, and (3) the extent to which information about these effects could inform efforts to manage climate risks across the federal government. GAO reviewed 2 national-scale studies available and 28 other studies; interviewed 26 experts knowledgeable about the strengths and limitations of the studies; compared federal efforts to manage climate risks with leading practices for risk management and economic analysis; and obtained expert views.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), including the Office of Science and Technology Policy, use information on potential economic effects to help identify significant climate risks and craft appropriate federal responses. EOP entities and the Environmental Protection Agency did not provide official comments on the report."

Actually, they do mince words.  The opening of this overview talks about the research in a way that gives deniers lots of cover:

"The methods and the studies that use them produce imprecise results because of modeling and other limitations but can convey insight into potential climate damages across sectors in the United States."

Maybe that's there for those folks who only read the first paragraph of so.  The rest is pretty alarming, though from what I can tell, they are very conservative in their estimates of the costs of not dealing with climate change - both through lowering carbon emissions and mitigation efforts to deal with the impacts of climate change.

You can see their overviews here and the whole forty page report here.

But I need to keep collecting more examples of what Republicans complain about as 'political correctness' and the words and phrases (and in the case of 'taking a knee' actions)  they don't want others to use.  Will my hypothesis hold up.

I'd note that I've discussed political correctness before and basically it refers to someone or organization using their power to keep people from using certain words or espousing certain ideas.

Most recently I wrote about what I dubbed 'Republican political correctness' and Colin Kaepernick.  Rather than repeat what I said then, I'll just let you go to the link.  That post has links to earlier posts on the topic.

I would note that this climate change example is basically a form of censorship in an attempt to stifle discussion of what I think is the greatest threat to humanity.  And it's similar to the NRA's successful campaign to prevent the Center For Disease Control from doing research on gun violence.  Without data, scientists can't 'prove' anything.  Now that is real political correctness.  "You can't study what we don't want you to study."

Signs Of Fires From San Francisco

We left LA by car yesterday for a chance to see all three grandkids and their parents in San Francisco.  This had been planned well before fires broke out.  It was great to have a road trip with a stopover on the way.  (I'll share some pictures later.)

While we'd seen signs of smoke, it wasn't until  we hit San Jose today the sky was very smoky and it was down pretty low.  Here are a couple of pictures of the smoke-screened sun in San Francisco.

Here's the SF City Hall Dome below the sun.

The sun a little later.

I'll leave the rest of the media to tell you what's going on and how climate change's effects are involved.  This is as close as I've gotten to this tragedy.  Off to see some grandkids now.

British Virgin Islands After Irma

There's not much to add:

The Basic Plan To Save The Planet As We Know It

Here's a pretty much random quote.  I just opened the book and started reading and found this interesting, but I'm sure I could do that with almost any page in this book.

"Most landfill content is organic matter:  food scraps, yard trimmings, junk wood, wastepaper.  At first, aerobic bacteria decompose these materials, but as layers of garbage get compacted and covered - and ultimately sealed beneath a landfill cap - oxygen is depleted.  In its absence, anaerobic bacteria take over, and decomposition produces biogas, a roughly equal blend of carbon dioxide and methane accompanied by a smattering of other gases.  Carbon dioxide would be part of nature's cycles, but the methane is anthropogenic, created because we dump organic waste into sanitary landfills.  Ideally, we'd do it differently.  Paper would be diverted for recycling and food scraps sent to composting or run through methane digesters.  When they are not entombed, these wastes can create real value.  But as long as landfills are piling up, we must manage the methane coming out of them.  Even if we stopped landfilling immediately, existing sites would continue polluting for decades to come."

Landfill Methane is #58 in Paul Hawken's (editor) Drawdown:  The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed To Reverse Global Warming.   

The book's premise is that we have to cut back - drawdown - on carbon emissions.  And not only is this possible, but it's a great opportunity to rethink how we do everything which will lead to a better life for all.

He breaks down that overwhelming goal into more manageable tasks.  If you wanted to climb the highest peak in North America - Denali - you'd also have to break that overwhelming goal into smaller doable tasks.

After almost six years of monthly Citizen Climate Lobby (CCL) meetings, I understand that the biggest obstacle to cutting back on carbon emissions is people's belief that it can't be done, or that it can't be done without ruining our economy and way of life.  I understand that both of those beliefs are wrong. Many, many people are working on ways to change how humans get and use energy.  Reversing our carbon use is very doable and it will make life better and create lots of jobs.  BUT it will force change on many people as some kinds of work disappears and new kinds arrive.

But as our current national attack by hurricanes shows us, the rules of climate are changing.  100 year, 500 year, 1000 year floods are happening with a frequency that shows the old equations are no longer valid.  Global warming is changing the conditions of earth,  giving us more frequent and more powerful storms.

Paul Hawken seen from Anchorage CCL meeting Aug 2017

So last month, Paul Hawkens was the speaker at the monthly CCL speaker.  Local chapters around the world connect by video conference.

 I took notes and was duly impressed, but never managed to post about it.  (You can see the video of the meeting here - the Paul Hawken intro comes at 2 minutes in and he begins a little after 3 minutes.)

The book has 80 ranked 'solutions divided into seven 'sectors.'

Sectors

1.  Buildings and Cities 2.  Energy 3.  Food 4.  Land Use 5.  Materials 6.  Transport 7.  Women and Girls

The quote at the top about Landfill Methane came from the section on Buildings and Cities.  Landfill Methane is ranked as solution number 58.

The top ten solutions are listed below

Top Ten Solutions

1.  Refrigerant Management 2.  Wind Turbines (Onshore) 3.  Reduced Food Waste 4.  Plant Rich Diet 5.  Tropical Forests 6.  Educating Girls 7.  Family Planning 8.  Solar Farms 9.  Silvopasture 10. Rooftop Solar

Each solution has calculations on "Total Atmospheric CO2-EQ Reduction" and Net Cost (US$ billions) and Lifetime Savings.

This is an amazing book.  It's visually beautiful and it essentially has the basic plans for saving the planet as we know it.  That's all.

So, why am I posting this a month after the meeting instead of posting about today's meeting?  Well, George Donart, the dynamo leading our Anchorage chapter, took orders for books at the last meeting and he brought them in for us at this meeting.  So I'm newly recharged by the book.

This book would make a great gift for anyone about ten or above.  I'm thinking graduation gifts, gifts for college students, for people you know who don't have climate change on their agenda of important issues.  For people who are concerned about climate change but think there's nothing we can do about it.  For teachers.  For people who are worried about climate change don't know what to do about it.  For yourself.

It's almost like a coffee table book.  You can pick it up and read about one or two solutions.  Then pick it up later and look at the rankings.  Another time read the introduction.

And the CCL website gives you lots more information and you can find the local chapter nearest to you. at this link.

Is my title an exaggeration?  I don't think so.  Climate change related events - and that includes things like the war in Syria - has disrupted the lives of more people, I would venture, than any other single cause in recent years.  If we don't reduce our carbon emissions things will only get worse.  The money we will spend on rebuilding Houston and (as I write this Irma's eye is about to hit Florida.

Screen Shot Google Crisis Map 12:41am Alaska Daylight Time

I personally don't think there is a more significant issue facing humankind.  And as the sectors in Hawken's book show, the solutions cover all aspects of how we live.

The Decline Of The US As A World Power

Trump  has pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement.  Instead of this being a triumph for  the Climate Change Denial movement, I think it will be their last Hurrah.  The shift from carbon based energy has too much momentum.  The real impact will be the loss of power and prestige of the United States of America.

Back in December 2016 I wrote (in a post about change in general):

"My fear is that Trump will do a lot of damage both in the US and the world, before he leaves office. Things that will have to be undone before we can move on.  And while he won't kill people Hitler style, if he does slow down climate change action, the result will be turmoil and human suffering and death around the world.  Severe weather events will create havoc for farmers all over the world.  Rising temperatures mean that crops that grow at a certain latitude now, or with a certain level of rainfall, won't in twenty years or less.   This will disrupt food supplies and livelihoods everywhere."

But it appears that the US pulling out will not cause China and India and other significant players to pull out as well.

The rest of the world  (not to mention many US businesses)  understands that reducing carbon use is a long term common problem for all the peoples of the earth.  While some may lose bigger if we keep on the carbon path, no one will win.

But what will keep them united in the short term is their recognition that switching away from carbon based energy will be good for their economies as well.  They recognize that while the Koch brothers and their ilk who fund the climate change denial movement in the US exist, the world knows that most big businesses, including oil companies, and the US military, acknowledge that climate change is for real and they've already been planning to address it.  They're switching to other energy sources, preparing their facilities, and planning for the new energy economy.

The US pulling out slows things down for sure.  But it appears, not nearly as much as we thought a year ago.  The momentum toward a much more carbon free energy world is already too strong.

The real impact of the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement is that the US will be left behind.  And the rest of the world will realize that they can do things on their own without the US.

Other great world powers have gone this route.  Spain and Portugal are relatively modest nations today.  England is a shadow of what it once was.  All lost their power, in part, because they couldn't adjust their glorious self-images.

The US isn't finished as a nation.  It's just that other nations are discovering that we don't matter as much as we convinced them (and ourselves) that we do.  And we aren't all blind and backward either.  Our previous president was an enthusiastic supporter of the Paris Agreement.  More than half the voters cast their ballots for a candidate who would have kept us in the Paris Agreement.  But it is up to us to prove to the rest of the world that Trump is a short term aberration.

In many ways, we've grown too big for our own good. We believe our own propaganda about our greatness.  But, we've been in almost non-stop wars since WW II.   We've dominated the world power stage.  Letting the rest of the world get more equal casting won't be a bad thing.

Let's just hope I'm right that our withdrawal won't have nearly as much affect on humanity's fight against climate change as we once feared.

28 Days Into March, We Finally Get Some Snow

It's been days and days of, in the words of Dan Bern, relentless sun.  He was singing about Southern California, and we aren't complaining, but it ended during the night and we got a little more than a trace of snow.

And it's warmer.  Yesterday we were in the mid 30s (F), and this morning's clouds were accompanied by 31˚F on our home thermometer as I write.  We really hadn't been above freezing at all this month with night temps regularly in the single digits.  We were cooler than normal.  As opposed to last year when we had very little snow, warm temperatures, and I posted this picture of rain drops on March 28, 2016.

And just in case anyone reading this is thinking, "See, it's colder this year, so climate change isn't really anything to worry about,"  should listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the  2 minute National Geographic video below.  

They Doubted Alexander Humboldt's Intellectual Ability

I started reading Andrea Wulf's The Invention of Nature:  Alexander Humboldt's New World while Z was getting her swimming lessons.  (That's another wonderful story.)

You know - Humboldt like in the Humboldt Current, or Humboldt County, or any number of mountains, bays, glaciers, towns named after him all over the world.

The introduction talks about the 100th anniversary of his birth,

"On 14 September 1869, one hundred years after his birth, alexander von Humboldt's centennial was celebrated across the world.  There were parties in Europe, Africa and Australia as well as the Americas.  In Melbourne and Adelaide people came together to listen to speeches in honor of Humboldt, as did groups in Buenos Aires and Mexico City.  There were festivities in Moscow where Humboldt was called the 'Shakespeare of sciences', and in Alexandria in Egypt where guests partied under a sky illuminated with fireworks.  The greatest commemorations were in the United States, where from an Francisco to Philadelphia, and from Chicago to Charleston, the nation saw street pa were in the United Strades, sumptuous dinners and concerts.  In Cleveland some 8,000 people took to the streets and in Syracuse another 15,000 joined a march that was more than a mile long.   President Ulysses Grant attended the Humboldt celebrations in Pittsburg together with 10,000 resellers who brought the city to a standstill."

Somehow I missed that in American history.  The next paragraph talks about the celebrations in New York City.

So what did Humboldt do that made him such a hero around the world?

"Most important . . . Humboldt revolutionized the way we see the natural world.  He found connections everywhere.  Nothing, not even the tiniest organism, was looked at on its own.  'In this great chain of causes and effects,' Humboldt said, 'no single fact can be considered in isolation.'  With this insight, he invented the web of life, the concept of nature as we know it today."

He got his insights from a strong scientific education, a strong interest in nature, a wealthy family that allowed him to make amazing journeys around the world collecting observations of nature.

"After he saw the devastating environmental effects of colonial plantations at Lake Valencia in Venezuela in 1800 [just as the United States was becoming a country], Humboldt became the first scientist to talk about harmful human-induced climate change.  Deforestation there had made the land barren, water levels of the lake were falling and with the disappearance of brushwood torrential rains had washed away the soils on the surrounding mountain slopes.  Humboldt was the first to explain the forest's ability to enrich the atmosphere with moisture and its cooling effect, as well as its importance for water retention and protection against soil erosion.  He warned that humans were meddling with the climate and that this could have an unforeseeable impact on 'future generations.'"

Wolf talks about how his ideas influenced others.

"Thomas Jefferson called him 'one of the greatest ornaments of the age'. [Is that a compliment?] Charles Darwin wrote that 'nothing ever stimulated my zeal so much as reading Humboldt's Personal Narrative,' saying that he would not have boarded the Beagle, nor conceived of the Origin of Species without Humboldt.  William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge both incorporated Humboldt's concept of nature into their poems.  And American's most revered nature writer, Henry David Thoreau, found in Humboldt's books an answer to his dilemma on how to be a poet and a naturalist - Waldon would have been a much different book without Humboldt.  Simon Bolivar, the revolutionary who liberated South America from Spanish colonial rule, called Humboldt the 'discoverer of the New World' and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Germany's greatest poet, declared that spending a few days with Humboldt was like 'having lived several years'."

So it seems spending a few weeks with Humboldt via Wulf's book, seems like a good use of my time.

This is all background to better understand the title of this post.

Alexander and his older brother learned  Latin and Greek and Enlightenment science and humanities from tutors,  one of whom was particularly stingy with praise.  He was important in their lives because their father had died when Alexander was ten and the tutor was with them a number of years.

". . . Kunth was never quite satisfied with their progress.  Whenever they made a mistake, Kunth reacted as if they had done so to hurt or offend him.  For the boys, this behavior was more painful than if he had spanked them with a cane.  Always desperate to please Kunth, as Wilhelm [the older brother] later recounted, they had felt a 'perpetual anxiety' to make him happy.
  It was particularly difficult for Alexander, who was taught the same lessons as his precocious brother, despite being two years younger.  The result was that he believed himself to be less talented.  When Wilhelm excelled in Latin and Greek, Alexander felt incompetent and slow.  He struggled so much, Alexander later told a friend, that his tutors 'were doubtful whether even ordinary powers of intelligence would ever be developed in him'." (emphasis added)

Judgments of teachers can do great good and great harm.  Different kids react differently to different ways of teaching.  One of my very best teachers was stingy with praise and quick to dismiss, but I learned more from him than any other teacher.

And somehow Alexander got past these challenges to become the kind of scientist who was able to synthesize vast amounts of information and see how all the pieces fit together.  Looking forward to this book.

[I've posted more about this book here.]

What Does "Change" Mean In Regard To Trump?

People write things like, "now that he is no longer a candidate" or "once he becomes president" Trump will change with the office.  Mitt Romney seemed to think he could have a calming effect. Tech leaders felt meeting with Trump would have a positive effect.  Thomas Friedman thinks there might be some room for optimism.

Really?  The man is 70.  What things will a 70 year old change?

He's not going to change his basic way of behaving, and from his point, why should he?  Everyone said it couldn't work in the primary and he won.  Then it couldn't win in the actual election, and he got enough votes in key states to win the electoral college.  So from his point of view - even if a 70 year old could easily change his basic behavior, there's no reason to.  His behavior works.

He can change things that aren't fundamental parts of his personal identity and the habits he's acquired over the years.  His basic goal in life is to win, but it doesn't seem to be wed to any ideology beyond that.  So specific policy issues could change based on the last person Trump talks to before he makes a decision.   Things like what he's going to do about Israel, building a wall on the Mexican border, or climate change.

But the bluster, the belief that he's the smartest guy in the room, his wheeler/dealer business style, his bullying, his need for attention and approval, those things aren't going to change.

If he's lucky, those around him will edit him before he goes public.  He's not the kind of guy who takes easily to editing, but once he discovers how much work being president is, he'll delegates lots of the work to others.  Though some of the people he's appointed have belief systems worse even than Trump's in areas.

He'll continue to be quick to take offense when someone slights him.  He'll continue to demean others.  He'll continue to make quick judgments because he thinks he is smart enough to figure it out.  He's not likely to start reading much.

The positive thing about Tweeter Trump is that he publicly says, and puts on record, what he's thinking.  The kinds of things I'd guess lots of powerful figures think, but only say when surrounded by like thinkers, and don't utter publicly.  That means we know a lot more about his true beliefs and values than we have of others in the past.  Well, we surmised, but they rarely gave us proof we were right.

So, I expect to see current Trump relationships change as new disagreements arise and or he decides someone's help is needed for something.  His friendship with Putin is based on a similar authoritarian style, so Trump recognizes another player who sees the world as he does.  But the first time Trump realizes that Putin has played Trump for a fool, that friendship will end.    Other actions - like supporting Netanyahu's pro-settlement stance - may have initial positive benefits, but will quickly lead to a backlash.  The world is a lot more complicated than doing business deals.  The US military power is a lot less effective in a world of ied's  and suicide bombers than he thinks it is.  Putin was able to use military power in Syria because he doesn't care about collateral damage.  An American president has to think about such things.

My fear is that Trump will do a lot of damage both in the US and the world, before he leaves office. Things that will have to be undone before we can move on.  And while he won't kill people Hitler style, if he does slow down climate change action, the result will be turmoil and human suffering and death around the world.  Severe weather events will create havoc for farmers all over the world.  Rising temperatures mean that crops that grow at a certain latitude now, or with a certain level of rainfall, won't in twenty years or less.   This will disrupt food supplies and livelihoods everywhere.

Many people believe that the five year drought in Syria was related to climate change and a major contributor to the rebellion there.  Farmers could no longer raise their crops and moved to the cities where they couldn't make a living.  They were the dry kindling of revolt.

Americans believe that their way of life is far superior to how people live in the rest of the world.  But those who have traveled, worked, and lived in other countries long enough to become friends with locals, know that their middle classes' lives were not significantly different, in the most important ways, from American lives.  These are the people who are now refugees from the killing in Iraq, Syria, and other parts of the world.  Civilization is a fragile thread.  We aren't immune from craziness here.  There are Americans who would be happy to perform 'ethnic cleansing' of non-white parts of the US population, just as the Hutus and the Serbs and ISIS did and are doing.  Those fleeing Aleppo or Bagdad were just as shocked to see their normal lives disrupted by horrendous urban military violence, as American will be if it happens here. The election of Trump shows us that nearly half the voters are willing to overlook all sorts of authoritarian, racist, and sexist behaviors for the hope of regaining the respect they had living in a society where non-whites and women had significant barriers to economic and social justice.  Focus on 'others' rather than the economic system in which owners of businesses get rich by replacing workers with machinery makes economic improvement ever so much harder.

I hope I'm wrong on all accounts.  Trump's style is one where there are few friends for the long haul.  It's why he wants his family as his close advisors.  This is a Mafia like world view.  Only family can be truly trusted.  Because his style creates lots of enemies.  I'm sure the Cruz's, the Christie's, Bush's, and others are just biding their time until they can avenge the personal abuse Trump heaped on them.  And like the people of Aleppo, the rest of us will be in the cross fire.  Probably not actual violence - though I don't rule that out - but more likely the destruction of our social infrastructure that protects the victims of a form of capitalism that has no respect for workers, that buys companies to raid workers' pensions, that lies to customers to squeeze out more profit, and finds all sorts of ways to make the rules work for those who are already wealthy against those who are not.

I've rambled on long enough here.  I offer a June 2016 Atlantic analysis of Trump by Dan P. McAdams, a professor of psychology at Northwestern as a more in-depth and nuanced assessment of Trump's qualities and how they may play out in the presidency.

Spending Afternoon In The Late Pleistocene Epoch

The UC Museum of Paleontology gives the dates of the Pleistocene as 2.6 million to 11,700 years ago and says the La Brea Tar Pits is "one of most famous Pleistocene fossil localities anywhere."

The tar pits is one of my good childhood memories.  Before the LA County Museum of Art was there.  Before the Page Museum was there, it was just a big park with giant, climbable  statues of the long extinct big mammals that lived then - mammoths, mastodons, saber tooth tigers, and giant sloths.  And there were live rabbits hopping about the park.  And, of course, the scattered pools of tar that entrapped so many of the animals.

So it seemed a good place to go with our granddaughter and we spent the whole afternoon there.

We took the tour, and the guide - he was really good - took on some of the myths and misnomers surrounding the tar pits.  First, they were really asphalt* pits.  Tar, he said, is man made.  Second, the animals who got stuck in the pools, didn't get sucked down like in quicksand, but tended to stay on the surface and die of hunger or thirst or from predators.  And this iconic set of mastodons is a little more Hollywood than real.

The animals at the tar pits are from the late Pleistocene era - 10,000 - 50,000 years ago.  So, no dinosaurs.  Just animals that lived when humans were around.  And whether these large mammals went extinct because the Ice Age ended or people got better at killing them or diseases is still in debate.

The museum offered lots of examples of fossils from the era and simulated versions the many of the animals and birds.  There are also people actively sorting through bones still today.

This woman (and two others) were sorting through material with paint brushes and magnifying glasses and microscopes to separate non-fossils from fossils.  The collect fossil insect parts and even plant seeds.


The building itself is mostly underground, with grass slopes built up around it.  My granddaughter had fun 'jumping off' the roof, the running down the sides and back up again.   (The 'roof' is actually that whitish wall, not the top grey facade which has a frieze depicting animals of the period.)  As you can see if you look carefully, it had rained heavily the night before, and as you can't see, it would rain again that night.

Click on any of the images to enlarge and sharpen them

Altogether a good afternoon for the oldsters and the youngster.  



*for a distinction between tar and asphalt, check here.
For a long and interesting pdf on asphalt, check here.

Is Climate Denial Really Republican Plot to Regain National Dominance?

In NY Times story by Justin Gillis printed in yesterday's Alaska Dispatch News about how climate change is now causing regular flooding of coastal area in Virginia and other states, and talks about local expenditures to protect communities being inadequate.  It talks about how the military has made protecting bases against climate change threats, but that Congress' gridlock keeps money from being appropriated.  Gillis writes that

"A Republican congressman from Colorado, Ken Buck, recently called one military proposal part of a 'radical climate change agenda..”

"Radical climate change agenda."  This guy seems to have a pretty narrow circle of friends if he uses trigger words like 'radical' and 'agenda' to enclose climate change.

Reading that caused me to think.  OK, this guy is in Colorado.  His district is the eastern 1/3 or so of the state.  So he's probably about 800-900 miles from the Gulf of Mexico and maybe 1200 miles from according to Net State:
the Pacific Ocean.  Furthermore,

"Colorado's low point, 3,315 feet above sea level at the Arikaree River in Yuma County, is the highest low point in the nation and is higher than 18 state high points."

So, Colorado will be the last state where the population feels the effects of rising oceans.  Though the ski industry is concerned about how climate change will affect them, but it looks like those areas aren't in his district.



But then it hit me.  The Republicans see their party imploding.  Demographics are against them (at least in their current mode) and their presidential candidate seems to be using his nomination as a branding exercise for his businesses rather than a serious run for the White House.

But.  But.  If rising seas take out liberal strongholds on the east and west coasts, that would leave the more inland and more conservative states.  Yeah, I know this sounds far fetched, but I'm adding it to my list of possible reasons people oppose climate change legislation like a carbon fee with dividend.

OK, I've used this (to me) unknown legislator's comment to make a rather light-hearted post.  And I am concerned that I not, out of ignorance, disparage someone who's doing a decent job and who's been taken out of context.  Actually, I don't think I have disparaged him, I just used his comment as a jumping off point, but I thought I should find out more about him.  We all should understand more about the people who are quoted regularly in the news - otherwise how do we know how to take the person's comment in the larger context?

So here's what I found out about him.

Buck had enough going for him that got into and graduated from Princeton, though on Wikipedia he is quoted as saying, he went there to please his father.  He moved west and got a law degree at the University of Wyoming.  (Still Wikipedia:)

In 1986, he was hired by Congressman Dick Cheney to work on the Iran-Contra investigation. Following that assignment, he worked as a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C.[5] In 1990 Buck joined the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado where he became Chief of the Criminal Division. Buck was formally reprimanded and required to take ethics classes in 2001 for a meeting he had with defense attorneys about a felony case he thought should not be pursued.[3][6] Only one of the three men initially indicted on felony charges was convicted, for a misdemeanor offense.[6] Buck said he is "not proud" of the incident that effectively ended his career with the Justice Department,[6] but says he felt it was "unethical" to prosecute such a "weak" case against the three men.[7] One of the three men donated $700 to Buck's 2010 Senate campaign.[6]

The Denver Post tells us more about the case.  It involved illegal gun sales.

Then there's the case where he chose not to prosecute a rapist, even though the victim had a tape where the rapist acknowledges that what he did was rape.  He told her that she had 'buyer's remorse" and there was an allegation by the rapist that she'd had an abortion in the past.  Buck is against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.  And he once said that homosexuality is a choice though it might be influenced by birth, like alcoholism.

 He introduced a bill this year to make attacking a police officer a hate crime.


This is one the men who helps pass (or obstruct) laws in Congress.  What do you know about the other 434 Members of Congress?

Flying Over Greenland - Icebergs and Glaciers

It was cloudy much of the way, but then I looked out and saw what looked like icebergs.  We left Anchorage at 3:30pm Alaska time and flew north and then east I'm guessing.  So it never got really dark.  And there were icebergs.

You'd think an Anchorage guy wouldn't get that excited about a few icebergs, but we were still at maximum altitude and the landscape was very different from the Alaska/Canada glaciers I'm used to. I suppose this would be a great time to comment on climate change, but never having been over Greenland before, I can't leap to any conclusions from these two pictures.

But the National Snow and Ice Data Center can make claims that I can't.

"Surface melting on Greenland’s Ice Sheet proceeded at a brisk pace, with three spikes in the melt extent in late spring. At this point, the pace rivals but is slightly behind the record surface melt and runoff year of 2012 (record since 1979), although ahead of the three preceding seasons. Melting in 2016 is especially severe in southwestern Greenland, and moving beyond the 1981 to 2010 rate everywhere except the northwestern coast (northern Melville Coast). This has led to the early formation of melt ponds along the southwestern flank of the ice sheet and early run-off from the ice sheet."

Reading the term 'melt pond' took me back to a photo I hadn't planned on putting up where I clearly saw a bright blue pond on one of the glaciers we flew over.  Doesn't look that bright in this picture, but it's the blue mark near the bottom slightly right.

The NSIDC site has images of Greenland showing the days of cumulative ice melt this year.   So, while I can't leap from my pictures of icebergs to comments about climate change, others who study this daily can make such comments.



Here's another glacier with the red moon far in the distance.  I was looking south.   At the time I wasn't at all sure what time it was in Greenland.  It was about 8:15 pm on my watch (Anchorage time) which would make it 4:15 am in Iceland (since it was a 7 hour flight and so we had two hours to go.)  I just checked and there's a two hour difference between Iceland and Greenland, so it was 2:15 am when I took these pictures.










The colors in this picture are very accurate.  The tiny pink moon is in the center of this picture.













It got cloudy again.  Now we're in Reykjavik for the day, our plane to Paris is at 4:20pm.  It's grey, 12˚C, windy, but not raining.

Talking With Republican Members of Congress About Climate Change

South Florida Republican Representative Carlos Curbelo was the speaker on Saturday's international phone-in Citizens Climate Lobby meeting.  He talked about his bi-partisan committee on climate change in the House.  If you're a Republican who wants to join, you must invite a Democrat to join at the same time, and vice versa.

Since I wasn't in Anchorage, I checked online to find the local chapter contact info for  Bainbridge Island.  The group was very welcoming and I enjoyed getting to meet people there who were also CCL members.  They gave me some ideas to bring back to Anchorage for our chapter work.

Bainbridge Island CCL meeting March 2016

Curbelo's interest comes from representing South Florida. He knows that without strong, immediate action, rising oceans due to climate change will inundate his district.  He even jokes with his House colleagues that they need to act because when his district is underwater he'll move to their district and run against them.

He identifies two extremes - the deniers and the alarmists.  As a Republican talking to Republicans, I guess that is helpful.  But I would take exception to arguing that those extremes are equivalent.  While there are people who may claim exaggerated dangers for climate change, many of those who were called alarmists in the past have been proven to have understated the dangers or how quickly things like Arctic ice cap melting was going to happen.  "Alarmists' are, at worst, exaggerating the truth.  Deniers are flat out wrong, and some have knowingly lied publicly to cast doubt on the very real dangers of climate change.

But it's not the policy of CCL to argue with partners, but to find what they have in common, and you can get the sense of that if you listen to Saturday's meeting which you can do below.

The most positive message I got from Rep. Curbelo was when he said there are many Republicans who are ready to come out of the Climate Change closet and support efforts to cut carbon.  He suggested that once the primaries are over, more Republicans will get on board.




Curbelo likes the carbon fee option because it's a market based solution.  He even pointed out that we already have a default carbon tax - the cost of the EPA - and that a market based fee would be more predictable than EPA regulations.

As I've said before, I joined CCL because I think climate change is the single most important issue facing the world and that CCL is one of, if not the, most efficient and effective organization I've ever come across.  And it takes a fairly Buddhist approach to connecting with other people who are normally considered adversaries.

After Curbelo, there's a connection with one of the Canadian members who talks about Trudeau's visit to Washington, and also his plans for a nationally integrated carbon fee program.  Then preparations for district meetings and the national conference in DC in June.  A key issues is learning to listen rather than try to respond immediately when talking with congress members and their staffers.  Mark, the coordinator, also talked about the explosion of international members in Africa, Europe, Asia, and Latin America which has happened since the climate summit in Paris.

For The Record

It's January 9, 2016 and there's no snow in our backyard.

In the 38 years we've lived here, we've never even been close to snow free in January.

This alone doesn't prove global warming.  But given all the other evidence that is piling up, we don't need my snowfree backyard to prove it.  There's more than enough other evidence.

Trump's Poll Numbers: 70-80% Of Republicans Support Someone Else

I've been frustrated with the media frenzy over Trump.  So what if he's leading the polls right now?  For example, this graphic from Real Clear Politics, has Trump averaging in recent polls 26.7:

click to enlarge and focus

I tried to find the question that voters were asked, but I suspect different polls were slightly different. The assumption is that they were asked whom they would vote for (today?  at the primary?), but another poll I found asked who they thought would be the Republican candidate.  There the numbers for Trump were much higher.

But really, 26.7 percent means that 73.3 percent are supporting other candidates.  And these are just Republicans.  It would be more than that if all the other voters - Democrats and undeclared - were taken into account.   As other candidates drop from the race, how many will move over to Trump?

We can't predict for sure anything at this point - the numbers are relatively low (spread among a lot of candidates) and lots will happen between now and when someone gets the actual Republican nomination.

The media, rather than looking deeply into the important issues and how the candidates' statements jibe with the truth (yes, they are doing some of that) are highlighting the outrageous, merely spurring the other candidates on to be more extreme.  The link goes to what sounds much more like a blog post than something from the New York Times.


So as I was looking up numbers for this post, I got the the fivethirtyeight blog  (posted November 23, 2015), which was saying pretty much what I was thinking, but with much more statistical rigor:

 Right now, he [Trump] has 25 to 30 percent of the vote in polls among the roughly 25 percent of Americans who identify as Republican. (That’s something like 6 to 8 percent of the electorate overall, or about the same share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.) As the rest of the field consolidates around him, Trump will need to gain additional support to win the nomination. That might not be easy, since some Trump actions that appeal to a faction of the Republican electorate may alienate the rest of it. Trump’s favorability ratings are middling among Republicans (and awful among the broader electorate).

All this fuss about what 6 to 8 percent of the overall electorate want?  Puts it in a much different light.

So, forget the polls and the attention seeking antics, and read up on the issues.  For instance here's a giant climate change meeting (COP21) in Paris starting Monday.  Do you know what COP21 stands for?  Here's some help from Radio France Internationale:

"The COP21-UNFCC is a convenient and abridged acronym for an international conference and summit due to take place in Paris, France from 30 November to 11 December 2015. COP21 stands for the 21st Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."

"In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010."

This quote comes from a Scientific American article about Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle's study.  That two year old article went on to say

"Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared."

But more recently, the ExxonMobil role has reappeared and the implication that it had gone to hidden money seems to  have been correct.  From a Media Matters article that cites different articles on this story:

"InsideClimate News published a six-part investigation in September and October detailing "how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed." InsideClimate's eight-month investigation was "based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence." [InsideClimate News, Exxon: The Road Not Taken, accessed 11/13/15]"

Just as the tobacco industry funded campaigns to deny smoking's health threats, Exxon and other fossil fuel related corporations have been funding climate change denial campaigns.  But while smoking threatened the life of the smoker and those near him or her, climate change threatens people and animals all over the planet.

I'm still surprised at how few people seem to know that the massive tide of refugees from Syria to Europe (not to mention the Syrian civil war) are the result, in part,  of long term drought that forced impoverished farmers into the cities and eventually to join rebel movements.  Of course, Bashar al-Assad played a big role too, but without a population of desperate farmers, the uprising might not have occurred.

My point is that while we can all think of examples of climate change, most people have not faced the massive upheavals it's already causing and that will get worse unless we do something serious soon.

COP2 is coming this December in Paris and if you don't know about it, you should check the link.

But you don't have to go to Paris.  Anyone in the US can contact any number of local groups working to slow down climate change.  The group that most impresses me - Citizens Climate Lobby - now has chapters in almost every Congressional district and you can find your local group here.  Just go to one meeting.  That was all it took to convince me this was an incredibly competent, politically savvy, and socially positive group. By socially positive I mean that their methods are NOT focused on conflict and confrontation, but on building relationships, using the best available science,  and educating Congress on the realities of climate change. 

In the meantime, if you live in or near Anchorage, tomorrow (SATURDAY Nov 14) there's a great opportunity to learn more about climate change and what you can do about it.  The forum will be put on by Alaska Common Ground -  the same people who put on the fiscal forum last spring.  It starts at nine, but if you show up at any time, they'll let you in and you'll learn something.
Here's more information I got by email the other day: 

 Alaska’s Changing Climate:
Impacts, Policy and Action

Are you concerned about climate change and wondering what to do about it? Join us at a free, public forum discussing Alaska's Changing Climate: Impacts, Policy and Action. The agenda is attached and pasted below.

Saturday, November 14th
UAA Student Union (downstairs from the Bookstore)
9 am to 4 pm

This forum aims to move the conversation forward by understanding the impacts from climate change to Alaska and what the state and community policy makers can do about them as well as actions for individuals to take. Public Administration graduate students from UAA will present policy actions both during the afternoon sessions and during lunch.

The event will be recorded and broadcast on 360 North, tentative broadcast date of November 21st. Info will be posted on our website.

These forums are expensive to host. We appreciate all the support from our sponsors and partners. Please consider adding your name to our supporters by making a donation at www.akcommonground.org or sending us a check to PO Box 241672, Anchorage, 99524.

Questions? Please contact info@akcommonground.org. Hope to see you on Saturday.

 [More Feedburner issues, so reposting and deleting the original.  Sorr