Why Naked Apes have Small Mouths. Explained by Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientist of the Reptilian Starfleet

-- Egad.... Meuianga. What would that be?

-- You are teasing us, Meuianga. What is this ugly mess?
-- Looks disgusting. 
-- Aie... disgusting, indeed. Is it something vomited by a Nawipkeyzätx?

Wait, wait, cadets. Don't jump to conclusions too fast. If I am showing you this thing, it is because it is part of your training. And let me tell you that the Apes call it a pizza, and they eat it. It is made with ground vegetable seeds, some meat and other vegetable matter

-- Do they?

-- Really, they eat it?

-- Gosh.... unbelievable.

-- But how can they........?

Everything has an explanation, cadets. And not every species in the galaxy has the same uses we have. I know that we all love meat bitten from freshly killed prey, but, my dear pupils, let me ask you a question. How often could you indulge in killing a Leetlapxkxay and eating it raw, recently?

-- Ah, well, Meuianga, that's true

-- We are in a spaceship. Not easy to find a Leetlapxkxay inside

-- And the trip was long. Even a good reptilian hunter has to come to terms with reality. 

Yes. So we all are used to our super-meta rations. They are good. They give us strength. Though, I must say, not so tasty. But that's another matter. Today, I want to explain to you how the naked apes of planet Earth deal with food. And it is a matter that's linked with other features of this species. You remember that in our previous lesson, I was telling you about the function of this species fleshy excrescences that they call "lips." But another interesting feature of their mouth is how small it is. Let me show you a picture of one of them. Incidentally, even though she is an ape, she is rather smart. She is, actually, one of their best scientists. Maybe, one day I'll have her beamed up to our spaceship, so you can meet her. Chatting with these creatures can be quite entertaining. But here is the picture I mentioned,

-- Uh? Is she really one of those naked apes?

-- She looks like an insect!

-- Weird. With those large eyes!

-- She doesn't even have pupils! 

No, no, cadets. She is not an insect. She is one of the apes we are studying. She is just wearing over her biological eyes an implement that they call "glasses" -- it is another kind of secondary sexual signal for them, but we'll go into that in a later lesson. I am showing this image to you because this young ape shows rather clearly the feature I wanted to discuss today: the small mouth. Indeed it is small. Compare it with your mouth, and you can see that. I can also show you a comparison with the mouth of another ape species of this planet. It is a creature they call "Chimp" and that of a naked ape. They are both primates, closely related to each other in genetic terms. But the mouth of the naked ape is much smaller.

And you see that the mouth of the naked ape is indeed much smaller than that of other species of ape. Now, the question is why. Can you guess? 

-- I have an idea, Meuianga. Does it depend on what they eat? 

Good observations, cadet Hämi Te Yuepxoe 'Ipxpaä'itans. And, indeed, it is a possible explanation. I can tell you that my first impression when I examined the mouth of these creatures was that they, indeed, suck blood. Several species on this planet survive on the blood of other creatures. The naked apes call them "vampires," and we use this term, too. 

-- Is it true, Meuianga? Do they really suck the blood of other creatures?
-- Are they all vampires?

No, cadets, not really. Even though, occasionally, they do, but they don't survive on that. Vampires are small creatures that eat the blood of much larger ones -- they can do that because they are so small that they don't kill their target. On planet Earth, the largest vampire species we could identify are called "bats" by ape scientists. They are truly small. About a hundredth of the weight of a naked ape. To keep the proportion, these apes would need to feed on creatures so large that they couldn't exist on this planet. Gravity would crush them!

-- Ah, good, Meuianga. In a sense, we are reassured.
-- These apes are interesting creatures. But vampires.... well, it would truly disgusting. 
-- And worrisome, too. 

Don't worry, cadets, these apes are not going to suck your blood. To be sure, they have some strange stories about creatures of their size doing exactly that. But I never could verify these stories, so I'll just assume that they are part of that virtual world that apes call "legends." In any case, the reason for the small mouth is perhaps even more interesting than if they were vampires. 

-- You are making us curious, Meuianga
-- Tell us the reason! 

Well, cadets, there are two possible reasons, one of which I don't think it is completely satisfactory, but it is worth examining nevertheless. And it has to do with the object I showed you at the beginning of this class. 

-- Ah.... the thing you called "pizza"?
-- And you say they eat it?

Yes. the story is that they eat pre-digested food. 

-- ........?
-- Do they......?
-- Really?

-- Sound truly awful. 

-- Yecchh....

-- But what does that mean, "pre-digested"?

Ah... simple, cadets, simple. You know that digestion is a process that breaks down the components of food into its basic components. It is done by several enzymes secreted by the body. Now, something similar can be done by heating the food, a process that the apes call "cooking."

-- Cooking?
-- We never heard of anything like that.
-- What would that be?

It is a form of pre-digestion. For instance, it denaturates proteins into more easily absorbable forms, and it also breaks down the cell walls to free nutrients, and much more. Cadets, let me tell you that these apes are quite sophisticated in their idea of cooking. And it is an interesting, very interesting cultural pattern. Those pizzas are, actually, very good. 

.. Er... Meuianga, what does that mean?
-- You ate ape-made pre-digested food?
-- Is that true?

Cadets, a Reptilian scientist is not afraid of personally testing the subjects she studies.

-- Yes, Meuianga, but pre-digested food...
-- Aw... yes. It sounds, it sounds like....

-- Gross.... it sounds gross.

I know, cadets, it sounds disgusting. But it is part of your training. 

-- Eh...? Do you mean we'll have to....?
-- Really?

-- Did you.... did you eat this thing? This "pizza"?
-- Is this a test we have to pass?

Not now, cadets, not now. But as you progress in your training, you'll have several tests to pass. And you might as well like pizza....Or maybe you can start with the kind of food they call Sushi. It is raw fish.

-- Ah... it sounds better
-- A good reptilian warrior eats raw fish.
-- Of course she does. 

Yes, and raw fish comes with a dose of aromatized ethanol called Sake, which has the purpose of altering a little your brain's synaptic activity. You may try that too. 

-- Meuianga, please, do not shock us so much.
-- We'll do that, if it is part of our training, but....
-- Meuianga.... please...

Cadets, I am sure you'll do your best. But let me go back to what we were discussing. We were examining the small mouth of the naked apes, and this idea of the pre-digested, or "cooked" food may explain it. If cooking makes food denser in terms of its nutritional content, then these creatures don't don't need to swallow large amounts and can have a smaller mouth. Doesn't that makes sense to you?

-- Maybe yes, Meuianga.
-- At least the way you stated it. 
-- But how does pre-digestion increase the nutrition content of food? 

Ah... this is a good observation, Cadet Kewpxzi'ì Te Lìpuaynin Stìuyi'itan. Cooking is mainly a help to make food more easily digestible, but it doesn't increase so much its nutritional value. But it is a reasonable explanation because it also makes the food softer, and so you don't need a big mouth to chew it. So, it is possible. Actually, it was proposed first by an ape scientist named Richard Wrangham some years ago. Here is an image of the "book" where he proposed it. Notice the funny thing on the head of the chimp - it is what they call a "hat" -- we'll discuss that later on.  

Wrangham is another smart ape; I met him a few times. He tried to convince me that his explanation is the right one, but I am not sure. Because, really, it seems not sufficient to me. Also, I think there is a much better explanation. But we have to go in-depth into the way these apes behave and this we'll see in another lesson. So, thanks for your attention, dear cadets, and have a nice relaxation with your daily super-meta. Or, if you like to try one of those things.... pizzas.... I can beam up one for you.

- Ah...
- Well.
- Maybe.

- And, after all, you are right that those super-meta rations are not so tasty. 
- Shouldn't we.... ?
- Why not?

- Meuianga.... we trust you!

 

h/t Ilaria Perissi

Lectures by Meuianga Mera

Why Naked Apes have Small Mouths. Explained by Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientist of the Reptilian Starfleet

The Red Mouthed Apes: A Lecture by Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientific Officer of the Reptilian Starfleet

The Naked Ape -- A Tale Told in Space

The Reptilian Mirage Suit: Learning the Purpose of Human Ears

The Evolutionary Game: How did Elephants survive the onslaught

The Red Mouthed Apes: A Lecture by Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientific Officer of the Reptilian Starfleet

 

-- Eek! 
-- Meuianga, what is this?
-- Aargh! It is horrible!
-- What is this ape doing? It is disgusting!

Wait, Cadets, wait. I understand, I understand. This image is a little unsettling!

-- A little unsettling, Meuianga? What are you saying?

-- It is monstrous!

-- It is scary!

One moment, cadets, one moment. And you, cadet Ìsäay Te Rawt'in Räkxvu'ite, please calm down. You don't have to make that disgusted face. 

-- I am sorry, Meuianga. I'll try to maintain the attitude that's proper for a space cadet.

That's good cadet Ìsäay. Now, I have to explain a few things to you. It is all part of your training, since you'll have to deal with all sorts of creatures in your career as officers of the Reptilian Interstellar Fleet. And you'll have to overcome your disgust about some lifeforms that will appear strange to you. This is one of these cases. We are going to learn something about these naked apes, and in particular about the secondary sexual signals they use. 

-- Secondary sexual signals?

-- Not sure what that means.

-- And what does it have to do with this monstrosity?
-- Meuianga, we really need your explanation.

Yes, of course, cadets. Let me go on, and everything will appear clear to you. First of all, you understand that this specimen is female, right?

-- Yes, Meuianga. We have seen a few specimens of these creatures. 
-- The proportions of the face, yes.... 
-- A female naked ape. We recognize then, by now. 

Yes, she is a young female, and she is doing something to enhance her secondary sexual signals. You need to learn that, for the naked apes, sex is very important. And that's understandable. In all species in the universe, sex is important. 

-- We know that, Meuianga. 
-- Still, this female is weird. 

-- What is she doing to her face?

It all right, cadets. We go step by step, so, let's start with the usual observation exercise. Tell me what do you note in this image?

-- The mouth, Meuianga.
-- Why is it so red?
-- And why so small?

Very good, cadets. You are doing well. Let's start with the observation that the mouth is small. Indeed it is. Compare it with your mouth, and you can see that. But, today, we are not going to discuss about the size of the mouth -- which is a hugely interesting story, indeed -- but only about its red color. 

-- You are making us curious, Meuianga
-- Tell us the reason! 

I am pleased with you, cadets. This is the right attitude. So, let me tell you the first reason for these fleshy excrescences called "lips." As you know, mammals are creatures that develop inside females; they are ejected out when they are still at a very early stage of development. Very young mammals need to be supported with a nourishing liquid called "milk," secreted by special glands that females have. These are called "mammaries," and we'll discuss that in a later lesson. For now, you may understand that the milk suction process needs a specialized mouth shape. They have these fleshy excrescences to bind to the surface of the female glands and operate the suction. 

- ........

Yes, cadets, I understand that it is a little disgusting, but it is how things stand. Of course, we reptiles have no need for such an organ. We are a superior species, with our young being born out of eggs, already able to tear flesh out of our prey and eat it!

-- Well, Meuianga, we knew about this habit of young mammals to suck this excrete from the mammary glands. 
-- This thing called "milk"
-- It is a little disgusting, yes, but mammals are mammals. We know that they are an inferior kind of creatures. 

Not just that, cadets, not just that. The story of milk explains the shape of these excrescences, these "lips." But it doesn't explain why the mouth is red. And for this you need to understand the concept of "secondary sexual signal." I see that you are looking at me with a perplexed expression, cadets. But let me explain. The naked apes of planet Earth share with us, Reptilians, several similarities in terms of the metabolic mechanism, although not everything. In any case, being complex organisms, they tend to fight the growth of entropy by mating and reproducing. The idea is to create new genetic combinations in order to better adapt to a changing environment. But this you know from your studies. The point is that mating between males and females requires a certain degree of communication before you get to the actual mating. This happens in most species we know, including ours. And this mechanism of communication is called "courtship," in which males and females signal to each other their willingness and capability to mate. Of course, cadets, I don't have to explain you about that! You all know and practice those wonderful courtship rituals such as scale-licking and tail entangling. 

-- Ah, well, Meuianga, we know about that, of course
-- Although, as good space cadets, we have to abstain from that
-- At least during the training.
-- Maybe just a little, but we try to do our best....

I know, cadets. You are all young males and females, and your life on the spaceship doesn't have to be boring, as long as it doesn't interfere with your training. But let me go back to our naked apes. They have their courtship rituals, and their mating signals. It is a different species, of course, and the signals they send are not understandable for us; not immediately, at least. Just like they wouldn't understand the mating signals we send to each other; for instance the poetic vibration of a forked tongue. So, they have several secondary sexual signals that signal willingness to mate, and one of them is those red lips you see in the young female of the image you see on the screen. 

-- In principle, we can understand, Meuianga. 
-- But why red lips?

-- What kind of signal is that?

That's a good question, cadet Nahaawnsmll Te Ìuìsrll Txuangì'ite. That had me puzzled for quite a while as I was trying to understand the meaning of that signal. And I couldn't understand it until I met one of the best ape scientists. Someone named Desmond Morris, he lives in a Northern Island on the Western edge of the big continent they call Eurasia. You have to understand that some ape scientist are truly top-class, almost at the level of our scientists. And this Desmond Morris, yes, he was a worthy follower of the other great ape scientist I was telling you about in another lecture, the one called Charles Darwin. Truly, it is too bad that their life span is so short, but Charles Darwin truly deserved the title of honorable, that is Meuiangitan, and the same is true for Meuiangitan Morris. He is now very old and frail -- they rarely live more than one hundred Earth revolutions. Otherwise, I would have invited him to join us in this class. He is one of the few apes whom I could show myself in my true reptilian form. He wasn't shocked, he understood right away who I was. He even understood the scale licking ritual....

-- Ahem... Meuianga... could I ask you a question?

Of course you can, cadet Iinetey Te Ìptääp Ìro'ite.

-- What do you mean with, 'he understood the scale licking ritual'? Did you... really.......?

Ah, well, cadets, if you are good scientists, you must stop at nothing that would prevent you to understand your subject of study. 

-- You mean that..... ?

In the name of science, cadets, in the name of science!

-- Ah....

-- Well....

-- Then, of course..... mmmh.....

But don't worry about that, cadets. It is not what we are discussing. About the red lips, Meuiangitan Morris had a good explanation that I think makes plenty of sense. He expressed it in one of their "books" and I think I can cite directly from it. By the way, he used the term "naked ape" as the title of that book, and he was an inspiration for me in that sense, too. Here is what he said,

Supposing we had reached the stage where the female signalled sexually to the male from behind with a pair of fleshy, hemispherical buttocks (not, incidentally found elsewhere amongst the primates) and a pair of bright red genital lips, or labia. Supposing the male had evolved a ~ owerful sexual responsiveness to these specific signals. upposing that, at this point in evolution, the species became increasingly vertical and frontally orientated in its social contacts. Given this situation, one might very well expect to find some sort of frontal selfmimicry of the type seen in the gelada baboon. Can we, if we look at the frontal regions of the females of our species, see any structures that might possibly be mimics of the ancient genital display of hemispherical buttocks and red labia? The answer stands out as dearly as the female bosom itself. The protuberant, hemispherical breasts of the female must surely be copies of the fleshy buttocks, and the sharply defined red lips around the mouth must be copies of the red labia. (You may recall that, during intense sexual arousal, both the lips of the mouth and the genital labia become swollen and deeper in colour, so that they not only look alike, but 7so change in the same way in sexual excitement.) If the male of our species was already primed to respond sexually to these signals when they emanated posteriorly from the genital region, then he would have a built-in susceptibility to them if they could be reproduced in that form on the front of the female's body. And this, it would seem, is precisely what has happened, with the females carrying a duplicate set of buttocks and labia on their chests and mouths respectively. (The use of lipsticks and brassieres immediately springs to mind, but these must be left until later, when we are dealing with the special sexual techniques of modern civilisation.)

-- Ah .......
-- Er........

-- Oh.......

I see that you are a little perplexed, cadets. 

-- Perplexed, Meuianga?

-- I wouldn't say that. I would say I am shocked

-- I think I will be shocked for the rest of my life.

-- If it is true, it is disgusting.

-- Can you believe that? All their life with that "thing" on their face?

-- And the males, too!

Cadets, cadets, please. It is all part of the infinite variety of life in the universe, which takes many forms, It often surprises us. Sometimes it shocks us. And sometimes, yes, it may disgust us. But never forget that everything that exists has a reason to exist. And even this weird feature of those naked apes has a reason to exist even if it forces to spend their lives advertising their sexual status by that strange organ they must carry on their faces. 

-- Sorry, Meuianga.

-- As usual, you are right

-- We'll try to do our best to understand.

I know, I know. You are good space cadets, and you respect the laws of the reptilian starfleet which say to respect all the lifeforms we encounter in our travels. Just as a balancing concept, imagine what the apes would think of some of our mating rituals. I sang our beautiful tail entangling poem written by poet Akxaayukx Te Eawo Ìne'ite to Mauiangitan Morris, and I think he understood it. So, let's sing it together in glory of the reptilian race, always expanding in the galaxy in search for honor and glory!

Amidst the stars, a tale unfolds,

Of love in ways untold,

Reptilian beings, with hearts so bold,

Their love ritual, a story to be retold.

With forked tongues, they softly speak,

In vibrations, secrets they seek,

Through cosmic waves, connections leak,

A dance of love, intense and mystique.

Their eyes meet, gleaming bright,

In the celestial sea of night,

Two souls entwined, bathed in light,

Their love transcends, beyond all sight.

With each flicker, a love song sings,

The heart's desires, their passion brings,

In the echo of their souls' wings,

A symphony of love, the universe rings.

Together they coil, in sacred trance,

A cosmic dance, a loving advance,

Two worlds collide, in a cosmic romance,

An interstellar love, a mesmerizing dance.

In the cosmos, they find their way,

To love, to cherish, each passing day,

In the depths of space, they sway,

Reptilian hearts entwined, come what may.

So let their love ignite the stars,

Across galaxies, near and far,

In their reptilian embrace, love jars,

A timeless love, beyond the bars.

For in the cosmic dance they've found,

A love that's boundless, unbound,

Their hearts, with celestial magic wound,

Reptilian love, forever renowned.

 

Lectures by Meuianga Mera

Why Naked Apes have Small Mouths. Explained by Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientist of the Reptilian Starfleet

The Red Mouthed Apes: A Lecture by Meuianga Mera, Chief Scientific Officer of the Reptilian Starfleet

The Naked Ape -- A Tale Told in Space

The Reptilian Mirage Suit: Learning the Purpose of Human Ears

The Evolutionary Game: How did Elephants survive the onslaught

Global Warming Explained by the Virgin Mary

The Madonna of Monte Amiata, ca. 1800 m. asl. This post is obviously fictional, I don’t normally hear the voices of supernatural creatures in my head, but it originated from a real experience, when I climbed all the way to the top of the Amiata mountain and the statue of the Virgin Mary placed there really seemed to me lonely and sad. So I thought She wouldn’t mind a little chat — not meant to be disrespectful. 

Good morning, Madonna.

Good morning.

Ah… are you talking?

What did you expect? Did you want me to cry?

No.. I didn't mean that. But I'm a little surprised.

You know, I would also have many reasons to cry. Look where they put me. On top of this mountain, exposed to all winds, cold, snow, hail, etc. Not to mention the smoke from the restaurants they put just below. But it seemed nice to answer you since you've climbed up here. It's a steep climb.

Ah, nothing in particular. Just a little steep. Anyway, thank you Madonna.

It is a pleasure. 

Listen, Madonna… since I'm here, I wanted to ask you something.

Well, everyone asks me things. There are those who are sick, those who have problems with money, love, and things like that. I'm sorry I can't work miracles for everyone, but I can try. You know. He also does what he can. But He has to keep up with a few billion galaxies. Not to mention the other dimensions of the multiverse. But what did you want to ask me?

I know everyone asks you things. But you see, there's a bigger problem. I don't know if you've ever heard of this thing called "global warming."

Of course. You see, I notice it even from up here, on top of the mountain. There is hardly any snow in winter, and it is much less cold. It's the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide.....

Madonna, do you know about these things?

Well, climate science is not really my field. But, you know, He knows certain things very well and explains how things stand to me. If you knew how long it took Him at the time of creation to regulate greenhouse gases so that it was neither too cold nor too hot. He told me a lot about it. And, speaking of temperatures, have you ever thought about Heaven?

In what sense, Madonna?

Well, in terms of the greenhouse effect, I mean.

Actually, no. I didn't think Heaven really existed.

You know that there are more things in heaven and earth than you can imagine with all your science.

Ah, yes... of course. But where is Heaven, then?

It spans many dimensions, of course, but it also overlaps with the one where you humans live. Let's say that in this particular universe, Paradise is in the upper troposphere. And it's a question of the optical depth of the infrared emission. In other words, it's freezing cold in Heaven.

Well, I can imagine, since it's so high up. But they say it's a place where you feel good. Everyone would like to go. It is not so?

Certainly but, you see, souls live there. And souls are diaphanous creatures. They don't feel the cold. Instead I...

Ah... True. It's the question of the assumption, isn't it?

Well yes. I find myself the only one with a human body in all of Heaven. It's a great honor, sure. But, as I said, it's freezing cold. Luckily my son, good boy, has put up a few clouds-radiators where I usually stay. More oxygen, too. Diaphanous creatures don't need it, but I do. And so I'm a little better. Then, after the Last Judgment, they'll have to think of something else -- they'll all come with bodies, and it'll be a little crowded around here. But He will take care of it.

But is what is happening now on Earth the universal judgement?

No. It's something else. It's a bit like when He forgot the magma to boil in Earth's mantle and a gigantic magmatic province come out. And goodbye dinosaurs! You knew how bad it was!

But you, Madonna, were you already there at the time of the dinosaurs?

Obviously not. But He tells me many things. He is very sorry about the dinosaurs. He told me that the tyrannosaurs had turned out particularly well for him. They were a little aggressive, actually, but they were magnificent animals. But that's how things go. Every once in a while an ecosystem gets out of control. He has all these galaxies to manage. Billions of galaxies, he thinks. Almighty all you want, but he can't keep up with it all.

Ah understood. Perhaps. But, then, what is happening to us now, on Earth?

Have you ever heard of Hell?

Yes, certainly.

You've heard it's a very hot place, right?

Yes, yes. That's what they say.

Well, it is the greenhouse effect.

You mean that...... ?

Exactly this. Warming caused by the greenhouse effect. You are all going to Hell.

Madonna, is it possible?

Perfectly possible. You are creating Hell yourself.

Ah...

Eh.... that's right.

But couldn't put in a good word with....

I can try. But with all the trouble you've made and are making.... You understand why I cry, sometimes, right?

Yes, I see. I think I understand.

But you never know. He's good. It's just that sometimes, even He can't stand it anymore.

Well yes. I imagine.

I'll try, anyway. Maybe he decides to help you out. But if you don't stop doing the things you do, Hell awaits you.

I understand.

And thank you for visiting.

It was a pleasure, Madonna. Thanks anyway. And I'm sorry about the smoke from the restaurants down here.

Don't worry. The way things are, they won't last long. There are no restaurants in Hell.

A Stand, a Grove, a Wood, or a Forest? A Discussion with Louise, the Natural Biologist

A "faggeta", a forest of beech trees in Abbadia San Salvadore, central Italy. 

By Mark Haubner

A Discussion with Louise, the Natural Biologist

Way back in 2021, my Drawdown East End teammates and I got together and, based on the
science of Drawdown, decided to embark on a program to plant trees in the five towns of our
Peconic Bioregion. Our imaginations took hold of us, and we decided that we would encourage
planting one tree for every man, woman, and child on our two forks—170,000 all told.

Gathering information and lining up our list of benefits brought me to asking a professional
environmental person for some input, so I met with Louise at a local coffee shop in Riverhead.

The conversation went something like this:

Louise, we’re very excited—we’re starting a program to plant 170,000 trees.

Where? she asked.

All over the entire region, some 2-3 trees on every home’s property, I replied.

That’s nice, she said.

But, I asked, isn’t this a great way to increase our trees and forests?

Not really, she said.

Why not? I asked.

They’re not all in the same place, came the answer.

What if we planted 100 trees together?

You’d have a stand.

What about 1000?

You’d have a grove.

What about 10,000.

You’d have a wood.

And 170,000 in one place?

Well, she admitted, that would be a forest. But you’d have to get back to me in 300 years to see
how you did.

_______________________________________________________________

Note: this post originated from a discussion on the Republican plan of planting a trillion trees (!!) to fight global warming (see NBC news). A desperate plan that would do nothing except damage. 

About Mark Haubner

Drawdown East End, Steering Committee
North Fork Environmental Council, President
North Fork Civics, Moderator
Riverhead Neighborhood Preservation Council, Member
Town of Riverhead Environmental Advisory Committee, Chair
Town of Riverhead Comp Plan Steering Committee, Member
Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality, Member
Taking A Lead on Zero Waste, Co-convener
 
UCAL San Diego, Sustainability & Behavior Change Certificate
MIT En-ROADS, Ambassador
Inspiring Transition, Catalyst
Creating the Future, Integrity Board, Member
Capra’s Systems View of Life, Alumni
CBSM Programs, Designer

Tickling Gaia's Feet. How to Deforest Oneself to Death

Image from Dezgo.com

A few years ago, I published the article reproduced below on my blog "Cassandra's Legacy" I think it is worth republishing it because the debate on global warming has entered a frenzied phase. On one side, the rapid rise of temperatures is evident, and it is worrying people a lot. On the other side, it has caused many people to take refuge in the usual cherry-picking. Hannibal's elephants crossing the Alps is a typical argument that revolves around the idea that "Climate has Always been Changing." 

But it is true that the climate has always been changing. A little, at least. The question is why. In this post, I advance the hypothesis that human actions were an important contribution to the creation of the "Roman Warm Period" (RWP) by deforesting the land, while after the collapse, the forests returned, creating the LALIA (Late Antiquity Little Ice Age). Small variations, but enough to affect humans a lot. These data may be seen as a confirmation of the importance of forests in affecting the atmosphere's temperature as an effect of the operation of the "biotic pump." Tickling Gaia's feet may be very dangerous if She decides to stomp you out. 

Sunday, February 14, 2016

The collapse of the Western Roman Empire: was it caused by climate change?

Image from the recent paper by Buentgen et al., published in "Nature Geoscience" on February 8, 2016. The red curves are temperature changes reconstructed from tree rings in the Russian Altai (upper curve) and the European Alps (lower curve). Note the remarkable dip in temperatures that took place starting with the 6th century AD. But, by then, the Western Roman Empire was past and gone. Its collapse was NOT caused by climate change. 

The relationship between climate and civilization collapse is a much-debated subject. From the recent collapse of the Syrian state to the much older one of the Bronze Age civilization, climate changes have been seen as the culprit of various disasters befalling human societies. However, an alternative view of societal collapse sees it as the natural ("systemic") result of the declining returns that a society obtains from the resources it exploits. It is the concept termed "diminishing returns of complexity" by Joseph A. Tainter.

On this point, there may well exist several causes for societal collapse. Either climate change or resource depletion may sufficiently weaken the control structures of any civilization to cause it to fold over and disappear. In the case of the Western Roman Empire, however, the data published by Buentgen et al. completely vindicate Tainter's interpretation of the collapse of the Roman Empire: it was a systemic collapse, and it was NOT caused by climate change. 

From the data, we can see that there was a cooling episode that probably affected the whole of Eurasia, starting at the beginning of the 6th century AD.  This period is called LALIA (Late Antiquity Little Ice Age), and it seems to have been stronger than the better-known LIA (Little Ice Age) that took place during the 18th and 19th centuries. The LALIA was caused, at least in part, by a series of volcanic eruptions that injected large amounts of particulate in the atmosphere; cooling it by reflecting sunlight. Overall, temperatures went down by a couple of degrees in comparison to the time that we call the "Roman Warm Period."

A brutal cooling, yes, and it surely had effects on human life, as discussed at length in the paper by Buentgen et al. But it had nothing to do with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, whose decline had started at least two centuries before. The Empire started its final disintegration phase at the beginning of the 5th century when it ceased to be able to garrison the fortifications at the borders. Then, Rome was sacked for one first time in 410 AD; and finally destroyed by the Vandals in 455 AD. That was the true end of the Western Empire, even though, for some decades, there were still individuals who claimed the title of Emperors. But all that took place in a period of relatively stable climate, at least from what we can say about the available data. So, the collapse was systemic, related to factors other than climate and, in my opinion, mainly related to the collapse of the Roman financial system; in turn caused by mineral depletion.

But could it be that, after all, there is a correlation between the Roman collapse and climate change? Just it would be the reverse of what it had been sometimes proposed: could the Roman collapse have caused the LALIA cooling (or, at least, contributed to it)? The idea is not farfetched: the population collapse that took place with the fall of the Empire could have led to a considerable level of reforestation of Western Europe, and that would have absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere. That would have been an added factor to volcanic cooling. It is an idea already expressed some time ago by William Ruddiman. It seems to be out of fashion nowadays, but I think that it should be explored more.

In the end, this story can teach us a lot: first of all, how fragile climate is. In the interpretation by Buentgen et al., just three volcanic eruptions - relatively large ones, but not truly gigantic - were sufficient to cause a two-degree cooling extending all over Eurasia. Think of what could be the effect if something similar were to happen in our times! Then, it shows also how the situation, today, has completely changed. Temperatures have taken a completely different trend with the start of large-scale emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Incidentally, these data also confirm the "Hockey Stick" data by Michael Mann and others. Global warming is real, the earth's climate is fragile, and we are in big trouble.

Additional note: The data published in "Nature" generated a truly awful article in the "Daily Express" titled "Mini-ice age 1,500 years ago contributed to fall of Roman Empire". There, they put together an incredible mix of unrelated things, showing, for instance, gladiator games that had ceased to exist at least one century before the LALIA. Then, they say that the 6th-century cooling "contributed to the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire." Which is an interesting extrapolation since the Eastern Empire didn't collapse until about a thousand years after the LALIA!!  At least, they should go back to junior high school, but, on the other hand, think of how they report about climate change: what would you expect from them when they discuss the Roman Empire?

(h/t Graham Readfearn)

How is the Great Holobiont Doing? Alive, but not so Well

 

This is a translation of a recent article I published in an Italian newspaper, "Il Fatto Quotidiano." It refers to the Italian situation, but I think it can be interesting for an international readership. Note how I tried to explain the situation in simple terms, remaining within very strict length limits. The article turned out to be popular, but, as usual, I received my daily dose of insults in the comments. It is like this -- people have an inner rage that they need to unleash in one way or another. I can understand them, but I wish they would find a better outlet for their sacrosanct rage.  Above, an image from the recent floods in Emilia Romagna in Italy, mentioned in the article as the cause of a quarrel between believers and unbelievers.

From "Il Fatto Quotidiano

Climate Change: Where do we stand?

By Ugo Bardi June 05, 2023

The environment and climate are not often mentioned in the media, apart from particular moments such as in the case of the controversy that followed the flooding in Emilia-Romagna. However, on longer time scales, we see that concern about climate change is gradually spreading. The latest Eurobarometer data (you can find them at this link) show that 12 percent of Europeans put climate change among their top concerns, with Italy exactly in the middle. This is not so small as it sounds: 10 years ago, only 6 percent of Europeans gave this answer, and in Italy, 4 percent. Even compared to pre-covid times (now remote), this year we gained a couple of "worry points."

The reaction to the perception of a serious problem can be simply to deny that it exists, but it may also be to exaggerate it. This was the case with the flooding in Emilia-Romagna where it was obvious to some that climate change was to blame while, for others, it was all the fault of the Greens, or perhaps the river rodents called "nutria." More generally, it seems clear that the rise in the number of worried people is going in parallel with that of the number of skeptics. The latter are very active in the discussion, albeit at a rather superficial level, with various accusations of conspiracies of the strong powers and reasoning about things like the Alps with no ice in the Middle Ages, and why don't you consider the effect of the sun, and then today it is raining, so what? On the other side, the reaction is not so much better. "The IPCC says so, hence it's true," or, worse, in Italy there came the proposal to ban by law "climate denialism." 

But instead of launching into talk of conspiracies or invoking censorship, shouldn't we try to better understand what we are talking about? Climate science was not invented by the WEF in cahoots with the Lizard People. And climate models are quite a different matter compared to the two hand-drawn curves that were used as an excuse to lock us at home at the time of the pandemic. Climate science has more than a hundred years of history of studying a difficult and complex subject and is now one of the most active and fruitful fields of study in modern science. It has given us a grand and fascinating picture of the behavior of Earth's climate over a time span of hundreds of millions of years and more. It allows us to interpret how the biosphere was able to survive all this time and to understand how phases of climate instability led to the great mass extinctions. That of the dinosaurs, 66 million years ago, was only one of many and not even the largest. 

Nothing about climate science is beyond criticism. In fact, without criticism, there is no progress. So, let us maintain a healthy skepticism, but let us also avoid destructive polemics that serve only to demonize, not to build. If we take the correct attitude, we see that climate change is not something that models predict for the more or less distant future. It is happening here and now: we can see it, and we can measure it. We have reached a CO2 concentration not seen in millions of years before our time, when temperatures were 4-7 degrees higher than today. And the temperature continues to rise. This year, the development of the condition called "El Niño" in the Pacific Ocean is already causing particularly high temperatures, and it could lead to 2023 breaking all historical records. 

The change is already doing us major damage, for example, making Italian cities unlivable in summer unless in conditioned environments. Not to mention the return of mosquitoes, now victorious everywhere. But the worst damage is being done by the tropicalization of the climate, with prolonged periods of drought alternating with periods of heavy rains. That these intense rains played a role in the disaster in Emilia Romagna is at least likely, although rain was certainly not the only factor at play. Add to that the disappearance of snow in the mountains that used to act as a water reservoir in the summer, and you understand the problems that drought brings to agriculture and why there is talk of ongoing desertification for southern Italy, and perhaps not only for the South. 

These problems can only get worse if we continue to behave as we have been doing, which is to ignore the impact of human activities on the ecosphere. CO2 emitted by fossil fuel combustion is probably the main factor causing warming, but others, such as deforestation and loss of biodiversity, have their weight. 

But let's end on a few optimistic notes. The first is that the global transition to renewables is going great. We have passed the $1 trillion per year level of investment in the transition. If we keep it up, we can reasonably hope to get rid of fossil fuels in a reasonable timeframe. Plus, we are seeing some "greening" of the planet, almost certainly caused by the fertilizing effect of CO2 (see this link). So it seems that the goddess Gaia is trying to lend us a hand in avoiding the worst. But we have to work on it, otherwise, the old lady might decide she can't stand us anymore and make us go the way of the dinosaurs.

Is there enough fossil carbon in the atmosphere to create global warming? Lessons from mistakes, misinterpretations, and propaganda

 

The great holobiont called the "biosphere" continuously exchanges carbon with other parts of the Earth system: the hydrosphere and the geosphere. It is a fascinating section of the science of the atmosphere that, just like all other sections, is subjected to misinterpretations, mistakes, and sheer propaganda,   

Earth's climate is one of the most fascinating fields of study nowadays and if you are interest you can learn something new every time you stumble into a new report. Even the so called "debate," biased as it is, may be useful to learn something not just about climate science, but about human psychology as well. Let see an example starting from a comment that recently appeared on twitter,

"Goggle Bob" defines himself as "Engineer that likes technical financial charting (energy, precious metals, commodities, cryptos); as well, a student of the fiat money system." 

First lesson learned: people will think that something they don't understand is "very good science" if it agrees with their personal biases. 

Now, let's go to the paper by Skrable et al that Google Bob cites. It is not an easy paper to digest, but it is an attempt to quantify the fraction of atmospheric CO2 that's the result of the burning of fossil fuels. It is all wrong, as we'll see in a moment, but it is a good occasion to learn something about atmospheric physics and hydrocarbon dating.

It is all about the "Suess Curve;" proposed by Hans Suess in 1967. The curve is about the fraction of the 14C isotope contained in the atmosphere as a function of time. 14C is an unstable isotope, but it is continuously created in the atmosphere by a reaction of carbon nuclei with cosmic rays, and its concentration can be taken as approximately constant, apart from human perturbations. One of these perturbations is the burning of fossil fuels. Since 14C gradually decays with time, those carbon materials which are not continuously exchanged with the atmosphere tend to lose it. So, fossil hydrocarbons contain essentially zero 14C, and burning them is expected to reduce the fraction of 14C. 

Quantifying this amount is not easy, but the final result is that fossil fuels generated about 75% of the extra 145 ppm (from ca. 280 to 425 ppm) of CO2 relative to pre-industrial times. The rest was generated mainly from deforestation and cement production. Another conclusion is that just about 45% of the carbon generated by fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere right now; the rest is stored somewhere in various reservoirs in the ocean and in the biosphere. This is a story I already knew in its main lines, but the discussion about the paper by Skrable et al. led me to go deeper into the matter. 

Second lesson learned: bad science can lead you to learn some good science. 

Now, let's go into the details. At a first read, the paper by Skrable et al. looks legitimate. For someone like me, not an expert in atmospheric radiochemistry, the way the paper is written seems to make sense: there are estimates, equations, and conclusions, all written in the standard jargon of scientific papers. But the  problem, a big one, is their statements that "the quantity of anthropogenic fossil CO2 in the atmosphere in 2018 represents about 23%  of the total amount of anthropogenic fossil-derived CO2 that had been released to the atmosphere since 1750." They also say that ""the atmospheric concentration, <CF(t)>, of anthropogenic fossil derived CO2 in 2018 is 46.84 ppm." And that "the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming."  (boldface mine)

You only need to know the basic elements of climate science to understand that the final statement is a flag for something badly wrong. Today, we have about 425 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is about 145 ppm more than the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm. Let's assume that the authors are right in their estimate (47 ppm of CO2 resulting from fossil fuels). It means that there are about 100 ppm of extra CO2 in the atmosphere that are NOT the result of fossil fuel burning. And where does this huge amount of carbon come from? 

You would have to think that the total ca. 300 ppm of CO2 emitted by the burning of fossil fuels was almost wholly absorbed by the reservoirs. And not only that: this CO2 must have triggered a huge release of carbon that had been stored in some surface reservoirs for a short time. Otherwise, it would be depleted in 14C and indistinguishable from fossil carbon. Difficult to believe, but even if it were true, the current CO2 excess would still be an indirect result of hydrocarbon burning. No matter how you see it, the statement that "the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels ... is much too low to be the cause of global warming." simply makes no sense. It is not a specific isotope of carbon that generates warming; it is the total amount. 

From this, the authors do much worse when they state that "unsupported conclusions of the dominance of the anthropogenic fossil component of CO2 and concerns of its effect on climate change and global warming have severe potential societal implications that press the need for very costly remedial actions that may be misdirected, presently unnecessary, and ineffective in curbing global warming." In Italy we have a way of defining this kind of statements as "peeing outside the pot," and I think you understand what it means. 

Third lesson learned: bad scientific papers can often be identified by their politically-oriented statements.

So, what was actually wrong with Skrab's paper? Examining in detail a scientific paper dense with equations, numbers, and tables is a lot of work (and, in Italian, we have a principle describing how unrewarding it is, but I won't report it here because it uses scatologic terms). In this case, though, there is a crystal clear explanation provided by Andrews and Tans that highlights the trivial mistakes that Skrab et al. made. 

Without going into the details, the main mistake in Skrab's paper was to neglect the effect of nuclear explosions in creating an extra amount 14C, thus giving the impression that the fraction of fossil carbon in the atmosphere is lower than what it actually is. It is more complicated than that, but it is enough to pinpoint the most glaring mistake in the story. 

Fourth lesson learned: a good rebuttal to a bad paper can teach you a lot!

Now, how can it be that a group of scientists with a good reputation in their field choose to deal with a subject they are not familiar with and end up making fools of themselves? It may happen that a scientific revolution comes from newcomers in the field; for instance, when Galileo showed that planets couldn't possibly move because they were pushed by angels, he made a fundamental contribution to a field that wasn't his; theology. But that's rare. Making a fool of oneself is much more common. It could be easily avoided with a minimum of humility: before publishing your paper, why don't you submit it first to the experts in the field? That doesn't mean that the experts are always right, but they can point at the mistakes that you may well make if you are an amateur. Nevertheless, it happens all the time.

Fifth lesson learned: scientists can be blinded by their preconceived ideas just like everyone else. 

To conclude, as you may have imagined, the statement that "the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels ... is much too low to be the cause of global warming." is making the rounds on Social Media, being reported by people who made no effort to understand why it was uttered, nor why it is wrong. And so it goes

Sixth (and final) lesson learned: Politics always trumps science in the debate.