Subject: northern climate

From: [email-masked] (Xavier Dequaire)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:55:47 +0200

Any body with experience in design for nordic countries?

that is 60 degrees north,
short summers with long days
cold and dark winters with several month with frozen grounds,
I am in first place interested in plants as the vegetation is concerned
and energy solutions as the buildings are concerned.

I am in Norway, next to the fjord of Oslo.

yours

Xavier

PS. what are those favas? Are they kinds of beans?
So far the debate though exotic is quite remote to my preoccupations, and
bermuda grass!

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 07:41:34 -0400 (EDT)

---

From: April Sampson-Kelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:02:24 +-1000

I remember Norway fondly, and have a friend in Sweden who
is into native foods.
I think one should always look at native vegetation - it's traditional
uses as building, weaving, clothing material, as well as food.
As to the topics that are bantered about, with enough interest 
the group speaks about nearly anything.
Quite obviously, when we look at bio-diversity and diversity is a BIG
part of our sustainability in food supplies and of course permaculture
design, we find that in nature there is greater diversity near the tropics.
But people need food where they are, and if people are indeed
cold or hungry then permaculture will be practiced and talked about there.
I have seen topics related to your neighbouring countries like Finland
on Aquaculture (Polyculture).
But on the whole, 
most people must be pretty comfortable with the way things are,
In Australia it is our concern for the environment rather than hunger or cold
that stimulates action.
April

----------
From: 	Xavier Dequaire[SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent: 	Thursday, 17 April 1997 2:55
To: 	[email-masked]
Subject: 	northern climate

yours

Xavier

---

From: [email-masked] (Xavier Dequaire)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:49:13 +0200

>In Australia it is our concern for the environment rather than hunger or cold

There is a big concern for environment here too.

The north sea provides oil and gas, this makes Norway a very very rich country,
and pressure on environment gets higher though consumption habits, road
construction and industrial wastage.

The climate implies high energy consuming, because everything is though
through the consumption model: e.g. people eat tomatoes and cucumbers all
year round though they would hardly grow in the summer on freeland, except
in microclimates.
the tomatoes are grown in energy/chemicals intensive greenhouses i Holland,
and Norway in the summer, and they do not taste anything...

That's where permaculture design gives inspiration to alternative and
integrated food production and energy saving solutions, and it works.
There is luckylly very little diseases because of the cold climate.

Peace,

Xavier

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:25:51 -0400 (EDT)

>There is luckylly very little diseases because of the cold climate.

A major environmental issue for Scandanavia, including Xavier's region, that
I don't read much about is the inevitable shift of the Gulf Stream.  Whether
the official scientific line is right and we are getting a "Global Warming"
or whether adocates of John Hamaker's line are correct, and "Global Warming"
puts energy into a refrigeration mechanism, brining on the next (overdue
anyway) Ice Age, the temperature differences between tropical sources of the
Gulf Stream and the arctic climes where it finally veers southward again will
shift.  The temperature difference is a difference drives river within the
ocean, which otherwise would be content to sit where it finds itself.
 Increase the temperature difference and the river runs faster.  Decrease it,
the river runs slower.  

A small change in average thermal difference between the tropics and the
arctic waters means a huge difference in momentum.  Remember your secondary
school physics:  F=MV(squared)  Any increase in the velocity of the stream is
squared and then multiplied by that imponderable mass of water to give the
change in momentum.  Obviously, momentum affects the location and arc of the
turning of the Gulf Stream from a northerly flow to a southerly flow.
 Probably absolute temperatures are important in determining the exact place
where the turn begins. 

The fragmentary information that I have indicates that the gulf stream has
been warmer as it passes Scandanavia, causing glaciers to melt.  The lighter
fresh water, also very cold, floats and the warmer salty water is submerged
so that points south, for example in the region of Normandy, experience much
cooler weather.  There are probably other complexities that no one has
noticed yet, and probably some that they have but that I don't know about.

The point here is that ANY region that depends on large scale ocean
convection currents for its climate, currents such as the Gulf Stream and the
Japan Current, will be in for weather which they probably cannot anticipate.
 For example, a small shift in the arc of the Gulf stream early on could be a
reall boon for Greenland and a curse of death for the Celtic Isles (UK and
Eire) and Scandanavia and a drastic problem for western Europe.  The effects
of a shift in the Japan current would likely kill fewer people, but the North
American Pacific Northwest might find that its population emigrates on a
large scale.  Maybe April knows better the currents in the Southern
Hemisphere.  Given reports that the Antarctic is getting even colder than
usual in winter, with depletion of upper atmpsphere ozone implicated, there
is no doubt reason for similar concern there.  The temperature differential
is probably changing to a larger degree in the SH!

2)  High (meaning big numbers) latitudes, North and South, need to be
concerned about ozone depletion as it permits increased UV radiation.  That
we are unable to anticipat the effects is little cause for comfort.  Ozone
depletion is in my view by a large measure the most serious ecological
concern on planet Earth and we are not really taking it seriously enough.
 The fact that the high latitudes get fried first is little comfort to the
rest of us, as the main photosynthetic engines of the planet may be affected.
 Major shifts in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, for example, may
not be permanent, but they might be enough to snuf the candle of our species,
among others.

For Mother Earth, Dan Hemenway, Yankee Permaculture Publications (since
1982), Elfin Permaculture workshops, lectures, Permaculture Design Courses,
consulting and permaculture designs (since 1981), and now correspondence
courses via email.  Internships available. Copyright, 1997, Dan & Cynthia
Hemenway, P.O. Box 2052, Ocala FL 34478 USA  [email-masked]  

We don't have time to rush.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:06:44 -0400 (EDT)

My friends in New Zealand are amazed that we can still spend hours outside
without being heavily layered with sunblocks and covered up tight. They tell
me that much more than half an hour leaves them pretty fried otherwise. 

Comments from down under?

MIlo Clark
Berkeley CA USA

---

From: Rhys Howitt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 07:02:31 +1000

>Comments from down under?
That's my subjective assessment too.  The weather bureau publishes daily 'UV
ratings' and these seem to go up and up on average, though I haven't done a
full study of it.

In the primary schools now, children are not allowed to go outside to play
without a hat.  When ours do, they get promptly crisped (true, they do have
fair skin and obviously little prior exposure!).  I too have been surprised
at getting sunburn in quite brief exposures.  Some days are worse than others.

Rhys Howitt
Crossroads Medieval Village Co-operative
Yass, Australia

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 07:41:55 -0400 (EDT)

>Comments from down under?

When visiting ther from here in up/over in 1987, I learned that skin cancer
was already 100 X normal in the southernmost portions of the country. 

Serious as this is to people who get it, it is not the main ecological
problem associated with increased UV penetration of the atmosphere.

---

From: Harald Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 22:29:27 -0700

Dear Xavier Dequaire,

Your E-mail of 17APR re northern climate was forwarded to me by a friend.

In case it is of interest, note a book written by me, published last year,
entitled "Bare Poles: Building design for high latitudes".

You can see something on this at my web site:

http://www.magic.ca/~strub/index.html

>From there you will see a link ("Carleton University Press") to the book at
the publisher's web site for more information on the book and how to order it.

Best wishes,

Harold Strub

----------
From:  Xavier Dequaire[SMTP:[email-masked]]
Sent:  April 16, 1997 09:56 AM
To:  [email-masked]
Subject:  northern climate

yours

Xavier

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 09:16:38 -0400 (EDT)

I have privately received a request to expand on my remark that human cancer
is not the most serious ecological problem from increased penetration of UV
into the atmosphere. (Not that skin cancer is at all less than a horrible
fate.) I must be brief this morning:

1)  There is evidence that ozone depletion and the resulting increase in UV
penetration have increased the severity of winters over Antarctica.  This is
well described in an article by John Gribben:  Climate & Ozone:  The
Stratospheric Link.  It was first published in Pacific World (New Zealand)
and then reprinted with permission in our publication, The International
Permaculture Solutions Journal.  In our reprint, we also included extensive
commentary by myself.  That is in Vol. I, No. 3, nominally the soils issue,
but as usual in our journals we published some articles on other themes that
we did not want to delay getting out.  Email me privately for subscription
info.  Pacific Institute of Resource Management, who publish Pacific World,
are out of Wellington--they have changed their address very recently and I
don't think I've entered the updated address in our TRIP (The Resources of
Internatoinal Permaculture) database yet.  If you really want the publication
fromt hat resource and have sincerely tried to get in touch with them, then
email me and I'll sort through the pending work heap (nay, mountain) to
locate PW and the new address.  (If you email me with this request tommorow,
I'll know you haven't tried very hard and ignore you.)

2)  UV is the most energetic form of light.  Mostly, the stuff in the
universe acquires added energy by moving faster.  However, it appears that
the speed of light is a limit on how fast stuff can move.  So light acquires
more energy by moving MORE INSTEAD OF FASTER.  It vibrates between positive
and negative polarity more often per second or per foot(meter)--same thing at
the speed of light--so you could say it is vibrating faster, though it isn't
going faster.  This greater frequency of vibration gives it more energy.
 Light that cannot be seen, that vibrates more frequently than visible light,
is called ultra violet because the higest frequency visible light is
"violet."  (Light really doesn't have color--that is a psychological
phenomenon--and too far afield to get into)  When graphed for frequency,
ultra violet is right next to violet, hencethe name.
	Now it is the added energy, to simplify things a bit, that gives you a
sunburn, skin cancer.  UV also kills more directly.  It is used in some water
purification systems to kill small organisms--zaps 'em.   
	It happens that the great engines for plankton production on Earth are at
the very high latitudes, Antarctic and Arctic.  Here's a genuine edge effect
at work.  Mechanims are probably several and they probably amplify one
another.  First, there is the intrusion of fresh water over salt.  This
always seems to stimulate aquatic life, thoough I've not been able to figure
out the specific mechanisms. Second, since this is often glacial melt-off,
there is the remineralized rock dust that could stimulate life.  While this
may play a role, remember that the oceans are already mineral sinks and the
remineralization fanatics may have latched onto a fals example here.  In any
event, we get tremendous crops of plankton--enough to attract plankton
feeding organisms such as krill and whles in what seems to us an univiting
environment.

	Now we are creating the great water stilizer effect at the poles, zaping the
organisms in water with UV.  These plankton engines are phenomenally
important to global ecology, probably in ways we won't understand fully until
they fail and we see the environment unravel at unprecedented speed.  How
interesting! well gasp.  Much of Gaia is plankton and we are messing way
beyond our reach to repair when we fry that part of her.  

3)  The greenhouse effect, whether it ultimately results in "Global Warming"
or whether it triggers glaciation (someone else can explain this one), is
probably right up there as a major concern to people, though not of as much co
ncern to Gaia who runs these little fevers and, pardon the expresssion,
weathers them nicely.  Since UV is the most energetic amount of light,
admitting more UV to our part of the atmosphere lets in a lot more energy
than if it were merely additional brightness.  Moreover, we have contaminated
the atmosphere with much increased proportions of gasses and particles that
absorb radiation and hold it close to the surface longer.  Either we will get
glaciers faster or global warming, or, as I suspect, we will melt the ice
caps so fast that before the ice age mechanisms come to play we get
precession and then an ice age.  Now the fact that MAYBE we can have large
rises in sea level (in which case glub glub for me in Florida), then a
flip-flop of the earth with universal earthquakes and mile high tidal waves,
and then an ice age, that should be enough to make us a little more careful
about dumping our shit into the atmosphere, no?  We don't want to know if
this really will happen.