Interesting about the light wavelengths' effects on proteins ... but is there really a "gap" where proteins don't break down under visible light? Or do we just not see the proteins that break down under visible light very often because of selective pressures? (Animals made of lipids or proteins that break down in ordinary daylight wouldn't last long on the surface of our planet. Maybe in deep-sea or
underground environments? We have definitely evolved better protection - coatings, pigments, and behaviors - as we've spread around the globe, from waxy plants to mud-bathing elephants to well-brought-up Midwesterners and their sensible sweaters.)
Visible light is definitely the kind we have the most of. The rainbow centers on the most plentiful daylight (filtered down a bit from the sun's actual radiation courtesy of our gracious atmosphere). A good argument that we evolved to see things in daytime, or at most twilight (our low-light sensors are most receptive to blues, not reds or infrared).
Night-time averages are a lot longer-wave, lower-energy, based on what's being released by the earth, the atmosphere, and of course any warm-bodied critters. Hence the effectiveness of IR (infra-red) cameras and goggles for night vision enhancement. Some snakes have IR heat-sensitive pits in their snouts, an adaptation for hunting at night or underground? Or maybe to avoid pissing off your venomous mate with a bumbling approach while entering the dark burrow.
Aaand back on topic:
I'm also biased toward the cold, dry, climate details. Frost shortens our season; we don't have as much wind as some places, but we have intense sun and drying conditions.
I'll be following along avidly for the drought-management or wind-management details, and then here comes the planting suggestions and its all bananas and casuarina. Any time someone with
experience in both temperate and tropical climates wants to offer a plant-functions translation, or suggest a resource, I'd be most appreciative.
Since reading this chapter, I am excited about the frost-prevention potential of our new building site. I was grumpy about the passive-solar angles being shaded by our sparse evergreen trees to the south, but we had other reasons to build there (not least of which was, the in-laws offered us that corner, not the middle of the lot).
Now I'm thinking about the small, tree-sheltered clearing south of the new building as a possibly ideal frost
shelter. If the trees aren't tall
enough or close enough, I might
boost it with a few shrubs or shade trees. Maybe use reflection off the building, too, which could whip up in August to serve as shade instead of heat. Looking for productive, partial-shade trees for that side of the building, tolerant of 1000 meters near the Canadian border (probably realistically zone 3, though our valley is 5).
I noticed something interesting during our weird winter without any end-of-year snow:
The evergreen trees (and everything else outdoors) collect impressive hoarfrost, then drops it like tinkling snow in the slightest breeze. Those trees are not waiting for Father Sky to hand out the snow or rain; they are making their own as fast as they can, with every cold snap. Not only are evergreens great heat soaks and radiators, they are also lovely dendritic condensers.
It's still likely to be a drought year, and I'm trying not to make it worse with our current attempts to deal with frozen pipes. (Maintaining a trickle of
water to prevent the pipes freezing is a common and effective tactic, but it seems highly irresponsible the winter before a drought.) So I just blew over a hundred bucks on more insulation, and pipe warmers, to rig up a temporary second line that we can turn off instead of draining each night, or guiltily leaving the tap trickling.
Maybe it will all flow down to the
pond come spring. (it's a greywater sink). But still.
Aaand back to the chapter:
Does anyone have more current biogeological references than the 1971 and 1943 references Mollison cites near the beginning of this chapter?
In particular, I'm looking for a good reference for plants of the inland Pacific Northwest, and perhaps animals and fungi as well. I'd love insights into similar geological regions too.
Toward the end of that first section, he makes a little plug for
respecting native traditional practices, as they often were quite sophisticated and didn't depend on outside aid.
This should be repeated until it goes without saying.
It doesn't necessarily make sense to eschew outside aid in this era of cheap energy and information. Also, worth noting native peoples were not masochistically independent; there is tons of evidence as well as living proof that most native peoples had well-established trade relationships for key limiting resources (high-energy oils and other nutrient-dense foods like dried fish, nuts, and berries; medicines and spices; minerals like salt, metals, tool stones(chert/flint/obsidian/pyrite), and pigments; luxuries like incense, dishwares, furs, and silk (the high-tech fibers of the all-natural era)).
But I don't want to become fatally dependent on trade for the necessities of life, and leave my posterity without the skills to live where we are. Can we use it wisely rather than letting it make us dependent, desolate, or depleted?
What can we do now, using "outside aid," to put ourselves and future generations in a better position once aid is less available?
Other points:
Diagram 5.7 is pretty confusing. I finally got a few of the numbers to add up, but I'm still baffled by the 70% absorbtion, 6% reflection by the ocean. What happens to the other 24%? Or is that what's absorbed by the
land?
Then he marks the land as absorbing 27%, and the mountain as reflecting 8%. Also doesn't add up. I was able to re-draw it following the text, and most of the other numbers did add up and make sense if you did the math. but still.
Does anyone have a newer version of this diagram 5.7, or a different (accurate) reference that you like? This site (
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind.html) has a lot of specific maps for the US, but I'd love to see world distribution on some of this stuff.
It could be particularly useful to have a map like the one National Geographic put out a few years ago, of total sunlight hitting various parts of the world. (It was part of an issue on skin color - they colored the map showing what melanin levels would be predicted just based on sunlight hours, vitamin D production, and vitamin B breakdown due to sun on skin, and made an utterly beautiful map of the land masses that's also useful if you're wondering about solar energy or photosynthetic potential.)
The potential for more weird weather should definitely worry folks, especially folks like us that have barely got a handle on our location's "normal" weather to begin with. Wind observations.... anyone got a good garden-variety tool for that? I bought a mini weather station but haven't set it up yet; and
I'd love to know how other people watch the weather. NOAA, weatherunderground.com, and other weather resources are great, but I want to know what people actually care about, and how you track it. Is a $70 weather station a bad bargain when I could get the same info from a thermometer and a wind sock? Or a "weather rock" (if you don't know this joke, look it up).
Excited to get some questions in at the beginning of the new
thread. The catch-up week was lovely, thanks.
And I'll be chiming back in when I've finished the whole chapter, I'm sure.
Yours,
Erica W