The Shaker Lakes Regional Nature Center has a photography club and last week Judith K. McMillan presented a (her first) power point presentation outlining her evolution from teacher to photography experimenter par excellence.   Ms. McMillan has a voracious curiosity - producing mosaic photo images of a tire dump in Maine to stark black and white photos of bird nests in the CMNHIstory archives.  

It is interesting to reflect on "Cleveland" as a "shrinking city", with 100,000s in declining population, 10,000s of abandoned residential, commercial and industrial lots and buildings covering 1,000s of acres of land, and a failing tax base. Simply put, much of Cleveland is free to the taking, and taxpayers will even pay to get taken by their leaders - the land that is being freed up in this latest Savings and Loan "crisis" is worth $ billions and is being given to the friends of politicians for long term speculation and short term enrichment... what is bad for the poor is very good for the rich, who can buy low (can't beat free, with public subsidy). I'd say all this foreclosure hoopla is as fraudulent as was the housing bubble itself, being pure voodoo economic bullshit media spin to steal from the poor and give to the rich - the "Developed Nations" way and a NEO leadership specialty. I'd like to propose a completely different spin on dealing with our shrinking city crises, which is to give back to the Native Americans what we stole from them in the first place, since we destroyed it and supposedly it is now a burden to we settlers in our cowardly New World.

Picked up from CoolCleveland.com Mittal Steel & Your Health

Join Cleveland area doctors, nurses, and community leaders for a public hearing on the topic Wed 11/14 at 6:30PM at Tri-C’s downtown Metro campus in room CC10. Light refreshments will be served. Come to find out why 375 Cleveland area doctors and nurses have written to Cleveland’s biggest polluter, Mittal Steel, urging pollution prevention. Dr. Kathleen Fagan from University Hospital's Swetland Environmental Health Center will speak at the event paneled by Dr. Anne Wise, Kim Foreman, and Dr. Dan Brustein. For more information or ridesharing contact Liz Ilg with Ohio Citizen Action at 861-5200. http://www.ohiocitizen.org

Location

Giving Climate Change a Kick

By Eli Kintisch
ScienceNOW Daily News
9 November 2007

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS--Top climate scientists have cautiously endorsed the need to study schemes to reverse global warming that involve directly tinkering with Earth's climate. <--!break--> Their position on geoengineering, which will likely be controversial, was staked out at an invitation-only meeting that ended here today. It's based on a growing concern about the rapid pace of global change and continued anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

"In this room, we've reached a remarkable consensus that there should be research on this," said climate modeler Chris Bretherton of the University of Washington, Seattle, during a morning session today. Phil Rasch, a modeler with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, underscored the point. "We're not saying that there should be geoengineering, we're saying there should be research regarding geoengineering." No formal statement was released at the meeting, which was organized by Harvard University and the University of Calgary, but few of the 50 scientists objected to the idea.

The field of geoengineering has long been big on ideas but short on respect. Some of the approaches that researchers have dreamed up include launching fleets of space-based shades to dim the sunlight hitting Earth or altering the albedo of the ocean with light-colored reflectors. Perhaps the best-known idea is to pump aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes. But there's been scant support from mainstream scientists, many of whom fear that even mentioning the g-word could derail discussion of carbon-emissions cuts. Others worry that technological tinkering might backfire. "I just accepted on faith as an environmental scientist that this had to be a bad idea," said Harvard's Scot Martin, who said he was reluctantly coming around.

Harvard geochemist Daniel Schrag and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary thought that geoengineering deserved a closer look (Science, 26 October, p. 551). In an opening presentation yesterday, Schrag explained that extensive, rapid melting of arctic sea ice (ScienceNOW, 2 May) and the fact that the world's 2005 and 2006 carbon emissions from fossil fuels were higher than predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are forcing the hands of climate scientists. Schrag also fears that when countries are faced with the prospect of even more drastic environmental change, they will turn to geoengineering regardless of whether the consequences are known. "We're going to be doing this if we're afraid of something really bad happening, like the Greenland ice sheet collapsing," he said.

The degree of scientific uncertainty was clear throughout the 2-day meeting. In a discussion of existing models, climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, California, concluded that reducing the intensity of sunlight hitting Earth by about 2% could "markedly diminish" the massive warming effects of an atmosphere with a carbon dioxide content of 560 parts per million (ppm). (The current level is about 385 ppm.) But over lunch, researchers debated the analysis. "You know you can get some sea ice back," Caldeira said to David Battisti of the University of Washington, Seattle. "I don't know that," Battisti retorted, explaining that Caldeira's model assumed a so-called slab ocean, which does not include the heat circulation patterns that help determine the fate of polar ice.

And then there are the risks. Harvard paleoclimate scientist Peter Huybers told his colleagues during one session that understanding of the world's climate may not be sufficient to properly wield geoengineering tools. "We should be humble about how much we know about the climate system," Huybers said.

Most of the discussion focused on whether to jump-start what has been an anemic research agenda with no public financing. Some participants said that they were spurred into action by a paper that appeared in Climatic Change last year, in which Nobelist Paul Crutzen called for geoengineering research (Science, 20 October 2006, p. 401). Others were swayed more recently. Just 2 weeks ago, modeler Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago in Illinois, writing on the RealClimate blog, compared discussing geoengineering to "having a shiny new toy" and told climate scientists to "get back to the serious business of trying to figure out how to economically reduce global CO2 emissions." At the meeting, however, Pierrehumbert urged scientists to study the problem as a supplement to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, although he called for a 10-year moratorium on any geoengineering. "To the extent I've changed my mind a little bit," Pierrehumbert explained to Science, the reason is the ease with which countries could embark on geoengineering.

Harvard climate researcher James Anderson told the group that the arctic ice was "holding on by a thread" and that more carbon emissions could tip the balance. The delicacy of the system, he said "convinced me of the need for research into geoengineering," Anderson said. And 5 years ago? "I would have said it's a very inappropriate solution to the problem."

From: http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1109/1?rss=1

Photo from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6818/images/409420aa.2.jpg

There’s a little mystery on the plywood construction wall around the Marcel Breuer designed Ameritrust Tower in Cleveland, Ohio.

Ontario, Canada has recently exempted all bicycles which sell for less than $1,000 from Provincial sales tax.   Toronto, the largest city in the Province of Ontario, has  sophisticated bike transportation management - an official part of the City government.

See the complete set of 6 photos at: http://m3.lackcolor.com/piles/?s=naturesnewriver

 

Neither the Gund Foundation nor the Cleveland Foundation made a peep to preserve the Breuer, and two of our County Commissioners (with the exception of Mr. Lawson-Jones) are (at best) too ignorant to appreciate the international architectural jewel which Jacobs bought and sold to the County  (The Breuer Tower, like the Coast Guard Station, shows Jacobs has erudite architectural taste?).

Build Your Own Green Home Game

Just thought some of you might be interested in this...

http://www.greenisuniversal.com/game.php

By Charles Clover, Environment Editor

Last Updated: 6:01pm GMT 05/11/2007

The battle to deal with climate change needs to be fought like "World War Three", the head of the Environment Agency has warned.

As part of the Greening the modern preservation movement: Bauhaus at the brink series, guest lecturer, Carl Stein, FAIA, Principal of elemental architecture, llc, of New York City has completed numerous historic rehabilitation projects based on his pioneering research in the analysis of energy use and conservation in buildings and design. Stein served his architectural internship with Marcel Breuer from 1968-1971.

Location

While looking on Green City Blue Lake for a posting on the Breuer, I came across an interesting article by Marc Lefkowitz called "Warm up to district geothermal in Cleveland", which writes "Representatives from Case, UCI, Cleveland Clinic, city of Cleveland, Flats East Bank and Neighborhood Progress, Inc.— which is considering geothermal district power at its St. Luke’s development—met yesterday (October 22, 2007) at the Cleveland Foundation" to discuss "The economics of district-wide geothermal". It seems these groups are exploring large scale geothermal projects to help meet large energy needs, like for University Hospitals.

Enjoy the Fall colors and the beauty of the Cuyahoga River valley.

I Pledge:

My Head to Clearer Thinking,
My Heart to Greater Loyalty,
My Hands to Larger Service,
and My Health to Better Living,
for My Club, My Community,
My Country and My World.

Location

Inefficient use of fossil fuels has been singled out Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen 35% faster than expected since 2000, says a study. International scientists found that inefficiency in the use of fossil fuels increased levels of CO2 by 17%. The other 18% came from a decline in the natural ability of land and oceans to soak up CO2 from the atmosphere. About half of emissions from human activity are absorbed by natural "sinks" but the efficiency of these sinks has fallen, the study suggests. The research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), was carried out by the Global Carbon Project, the University of East Anglia, UK, and the British Antarctic Survey. It found that improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy have stalled since 2000, leading to an unexpected jump in atmospheric CO2. "In addition to the growth of global population and wealth, we now know that significant contributions to the growth of atmospheric CO2 arise from the slow-down of natural sinks and the halt to improvements in the carbon intensity of wealth production," said the study's lead author, Dr Pep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project. Global sink The weakening of the Earth's ability to cope with greenhouse gases is thought to be a result of changing wind patterns over seas and droughts on land. "The decline in global sink efficiency suggests that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought," said report co-author Dr Corinne Le Quere of the British Antarctic Survey. "We found that nearly half of the decline in the efficiency of the ocean CO2 sink is due to the intensification of the winds in the Southern Ocean." The declining power of the seas to soak up industrial pollution is not only being recorded in the southern hemisphere, however. According to a separate 10-year study published recently, the effect is also being seen in the North Atlantic.