Diversion Time: Green Bay @ Seattle on MNF

EDIT: Thanks to Scott Kacsmar for some of the new info here. He has a great writeup on this whole thing, very similar to mine here.

Much has been made of the TD pass at the end of the game, and almost universally it has been decried as the Single Worst Call Ever in the History of Mankind. In a word...

WRONG!

Upon further review, the call was...

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

In fact, it's not even close to being a bad call. There should be zero dispute, but this is a good example of the Big Lie: Repeat it often enough, it becomes the accepted truth.

THE CATCH
What's at issue? Control and possession. Control has to do with having the ball whether in the air, on the ground or sitting at Gramma's table eating milk and cookies. You have to have the ball controlled by your body without any doubt. Possession is still having control while also being on the ground. Being on the ground can be both feet or any combination of feet, elbows, shoulders, knees, butt, hips, thighs or other major body part, BUT the player must maintain control through the act of hitting the ground. It's not just the instant they touch, unless it's the two feet and no other body part, particularly when two players are fighting for the ball.

A simultaneous catch is determined by who touches the ball first. If you have control first, even if the other guy then also gets control, you are the one making the catch. But let's establish a few things first.

* Do one-handed catches occur? Yes.
* Are two hands required for control? No.

Guess whose hand the ball is in first, without ever losing it thereafter? Drumrolllllllllllll... Golden Tate's.

What we see here is similar to a an animal trap. First, the ball hits Tate's hand and just stops. It doesn't bounce or anything, it just stops there. This is a one-handed catch if Jennings doesn't interfere. But it's as if Tate's hand is the plate/trigger mechanism and Jenning's hands then both close on the ball at the same time like the two sets of jagged teeth of an animal trap.

Please note Tate's hand is still there, on the ball. He starts pulling it to himself which also pulls Jennings down toward and over Tate himself. It's very clear in all videos you watch. So, rather than Jennings getting the ball then Tate grabbing it, it is completely the opposite. Jennings now has ZERO claim to having first control of the ball. At real time speed, it's simultaneous.

Gotta love reality... and perhaps a turkey-sized crow for all the unsportsmanlike comments and commentaries towards the refs, Golden Tate and the Seahawks. It was an absolutely, completely and utterly correct call.


Now, let's be honest here: As I have repeated over and over, in real time you can't see this, even on TV, so what is wrong with people's heads that lets them claim the refs should have?

It has also been assumed that Jennings got his hands on the ball and never moved them. That is, they were as solidly on the ball as mine would be on that plate of cookies if anyone tried to take them, and from the first contact with the ball through hitting the ground. But they weren't. In the Hi-Def video below, you can see Jennings' hands still moving at the :10 and :11 second mark of the video. That means he does not have control as he is falling. After the :10 or :11 mark, we can't clearly see both his hands as he finally hits the ground.

Hi-Def video:

We can say the exact same thing of Tate. It does look like he has both hands on the ball before they hit the turf, as it does for Jennings, but JENNINGS IS NOT YET DOWN, while Tate already has both feet on the ground. If Tate's hands are solidly on the ball, then he is the first to both have control AND be down. TD Seattle, if so. But let's also remember that a one-handed catch is a legal catch. While we can't see it because of Jennings, Tate's hand has never come out. It's been in ther pulling the ball and Jennings toward Tate the whole time. But, we can't see Tate's hands any more clearly than we can see Jennings'.

Thus, there is NO conclusive, indisputable claim of control by either player as they are falling. Repeat, NO CONCLUSIVE, INDISPUTABLE CLAIM OF CONTROL BY EITHER PLAYER AS THEY ARE FALLING.

This means the call on the play cannot be overturned. CANNOT BE OVERTURNED, PERIOD. Even if wrong. Luckily for us (i.e., Seattle fans and those few objective others), the call was not wrong, but was correct.Not only correct, but indisputably... in super slow motion. Tate had the ball first.

Remember: The rule is not simultaneous possession, it is simultaneous catch. There is no catch until control and possession are established.

Now, just who is down first? The following photo and video from a Seattle area TV station clearly show Tate has both feet on the ground long before Jennings does. Tate's feet are down, and stay down, long before Jennings. Jennings is not down until he falls on Tate. Tate has therefore established possession first. (But, to repeat and be fair, in real time it's impossible to see who got the ball first. In slow motion you can't tell who touches first for certain, but it mostly looks like Jennings. It's only in super  slow, frame-by-frame we can see Tate actually gets the ball first.)

This photo (there used to be a video from Seattle's Fox Q13 station there, too) shows Tate's left hand still cradling the ball, and both feet on the ground. That's a catch. Right there, right then, it's control plus possession and equals a catch. But not for Jennings. Not yet. He has not established possession at all.

Seattle Times pic. 

The following series of pics from a photographer at the same angle shows it slowly so you can be completely sure Tate was down first. Tate's feet are down by frame 3, but Jennings is not down till his second foot hits in frame 7. IF both have control while falling, Tate's ball. Seattle TD.

Seattle Times animated .gif

But, since we have no conclusive, indisputable claim of control prior to both being on the ground, who was on the ground first is actually irrelevant. The next question is, was there a catch of any kind at all? Answer? Yes. Why? The ball clearly never touches the ground, so SOMEBODY caught it.

The only time we can be indisputably sure of control AND possession is when both are on the ground. At that point, BOTH have control AND possession. The rules are clear here: when both an offensive and defensive player have control and possession of the ball, THE BALL GOES TO THE RECEIVER.

The ref that made the call speaks out, and he's correct: Ref Lance Easley Speaks.

Sorry Green Bay, you neither got robbed nor jobbed.

YOU GOT YOUR BUTTS HANDED TO YOU BY A TEAM THAT WAS 7 - 9 LAST YEAR AND MAY HAVE THE BEST DEFENSE IN THE LEAGUE THIS YEAR.

SPORTSMANSHIP
Merriam-Webster definition: conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport.

I would add to that, not jumping to conclusions and characterizing a play or a result before all facts are clearly known. We all have seen the near-universal complaining and the characterization of this call as the Worst Call in NFL History. All of this was premature, and ultimately proven to be incorrect. Maybe I'm experiencing selective amnesia, but I seem to remember back in my youth ('70's and 80's) that commentators and analysts were careful to couch their observations such to be respectful of the refs. But not on Monday night. It was fair game from the first moment to pillory the call, the refs and even the Seahawks players and team.

The refs were called incompetent and a cry went up about replacement refs. But the guy who actually decided the call was not a replacement. The review official was a regular review official. Ruh-roh! What's the excuse, then? Worst Call Ever!!

Except that was wrong. But it was always wrong. Anyone who considered that play clear-cut and indisputable was not thinking.

1. What the refs see on the ground and what we see on TV is VASTLY different. The ref that was behind could not have seen clearly who had control, so called it based on what he found in the pile: both players in possession and in control: Touchdown, Seahawks.

Absolutely, completely and utterly correct call on his part.

2. The other ref that came over from the opposite side ALSO could not have seen who had or maintained possession as they fell. In fact, we have no idea what he saw. We've never seen his line of sight. At best, he could only have seen the first moments of possession. Now, there is some confusion as to what he was signalling. Some think, and this fits the majority meme on this of Worst Call Ever, he was signalling a touchback. If so, based on what he absolutely did see, Jennings with early control, but no possession since he wasn't down, and unable to see who held possession as they fell, was also absolutely, completely and utterly correct on his part. Once he ran around and saw Jennings' hands on the ball, and if you assume they always were, no simultaneous possession, so INT and touchback.

2b. Others believe he was trying to signal time had expired, thus implicitly accepting the TD ruling. If so, an absolutely, completely and utterly correct call on his part.

Two refs, three different facets. And neither had full view of the players and their hands for the full play. Not simple, not easy, not clear-cut. Unless you are watching at home on TV, or watching replays, but without the full range of replays. And now we know you also have to have frame by frame analysis to see The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth, and that is that Golden Tate had first touch and control, then Jennings added his hands.

3. As a fan, player, coach or commentator you have to put yourself in the shoes of the officials. What did they see? What YOU can see is irrelevant. What is relevant is what THEY can see, and the context within the rules of the NFL. That is the only principled thing to do: judge them on what they saw.

If Jennings had control from first touch to gaining possession by touching his feet/body down and still having control, it's an INT. But the refs could not possibly have seen whether his hands moved, they can only assume. But that is not what refs are supposed to do. They must judge based on what is seen. All that is indisputably seen by the refs is Jennings seeming to gain first control (but not indisputably as Tate is also in the mix), Tate being down first, both players with control and possession once both are down. Neither could see what happened in the tangle of bodies as they fell. The proper call there is Seattle TD because it is impossible to be sure the jostling for the ball did not result in Jennings losing full control of the ball. As we saw in the video above, he does lose full control when we see his hands moving. (And we, again, now know Tate actually had the ball first and never lost his control of the ball.)

And neither had full view of the players and their hands for the full play. An absolutely, completely and utterly correct call on their part, even before we knew anything about the frame-by-frame showing Tate getting the ball first..

But even if the call had been wrong, once called, it must be indisputably wrong. The context is important! The replay official can now only overturn the call if there is indisputable proof Jennings not only first had, but also maintained, control of the ball through the act of gaining possession by being down while still having control, and that Tate never had any control or that he gained control after Jennings. Most TV angles and quality of replay do not allow this. The one Hi-Def video we do have shows Jennings' hands moving as he is falling to the turf. I can only assume the replay official has the same quality of equipment and saw this. Thus, not only can he not overturn, he must fully agree with the call on the field. But even if he, individually, did disagree, he cannot overturn because it is not indisputable that Jennings maintained control from first touch through full possession nor that Tate did not also have control of and possession of the ball.

He MUST uphold the call, by NFL rule. An absolutely, completely and utterly correct call on his part.

It was and is one of the worst displays of lack of sportsmanship I've ever seen for players, fans, analysts and commentators to be insulting the refs, Seattle players and the Seahawks team. They have all completely failed to remember the refs see it differently than they do on TV or even on the field. Even for the Packers players who have been so unsportsmanlike, their line of site is not the same as the officials. To assume they see what you see is not logical, so to base your scorn on them based on that is unsportsmanlike.

Add to that the officials are bound by rules that limit their individual opinion in making a decision. Maybe the replay official thought it was an INT, but it didn't matter, if so, because the evidence was not indisputable. To pillory him for that is ridiculous.


At the end of the day, this was a very, very difficult call to make. It was not at all easy or clear-cut. But it was correct.

THE POOR PACKERS
Awww... the poor Packers! Their whole season might be gone... what if... what if... what if....?

Good. Let's play the "What if...?" game.

1. What if Green Bay hadn't run into the brick wall of Seattle's Defense, particularly in the first half?

2. What if Jennings had done as instructed and tried to bat the ball away? We all initially thought he could have easily tipped it up and over all their heads since we thought he had first contact at the highest point of contact. Now we know he didn't and that Tate had a strong enough grip on the ball that he was able to pull both it and Jennings to his chest. But what if Jennings had tried? It might have gone out of bounds or tumbled to the turf incomplete. But he decided to try to catch it. Perhaps he forgot the tie -to-the-runner rule?

3. What if Kam Chancellor hadn't been improperly flagged on Green Bay's TD drive? Green Bay was not past midfield, it was third down, there was about 11:30 on the clock. Green Bay would have punted. No TD. That play changed the scoring just as much as the final pass did. Without that bad call, there is zero chance of a GB TD on that drive. Score? 7 - 6 Seattle if you also take away Tate's second TD. You see, Seattle's D HELD UP, but that effort was erased by a bad call. And that affected the eventual score.

4. What if Green Bay hadn't run into the Seattle buzz saw on the two point conversion? If the last play ruling was not reversed, it's a tie game, or a Seattle two point conversion, or GB win if Seattle got a two point conversion. All under Green Bay's control. But, Seattle's D held up AGAIN by knocking the ball away. (Hear that Jennings?). The last call of the last play of the game should have been irrelevant for GB, but it wasn't because they were being punked by Seattle's D.

5a. What about Karma? Seattle @ NYJ, Testaverde's white helmet called a football, and the helmet scores a TD. This wasn't a third game of the season where Seattle had a chance to win 13 more games. No, this was to get into the playoffs. Now that truly was an egregious call. It was completely and utterly wrong. And it didn't cost Seattle just a game, it cost them the playoffs.

 5b. And what if the Seattle vs. Pittsburgh game hadn't been botched completely and utterly, robbing Seattle of a chance at a championship? You want to talk karma? Please. We're talking about play after play - there were thirteen of them - that jobbed Seattle. It was a bleeping Super Bowl, not some third game of the year!!

Are ya freakin' kidding me? Your poor season is all but over? What if you continue to suck and get beat out of the playoffs by one game? Yeah, what if you choose not to win. You bet! A travesty of the highest order! The greatest football jobbing in history!

Not.

5c. And what if Green Bay wasn't the beneficiary of not one, but two completely botched calls vs. Minnesota in 2010? Where was all the gnashing of teeth on the part of the Packers then? Why wasn't THEIR manhood at issue for not admitting they did not win, but were gifted the game? And not only a game, but a playoff spot. That led to a Super Bowl. The hypocrisy is incredible.

6. Green Bay can still end the season 14 - 2. What, exactly, have they been robbed of? Nothing. But I guarantee you that if they have any mettle at all (and based on the unsportsmanlike conduct of the players and organization, that is questionable till the next game proves one way or the other) this loss will light a fire under their butts. They are actually more likely to go 14 - 2 now than they were before this game. Excuse the sarcasm, but those poor, pitiful Packers having to carry such a burden!

C'mon, people. Get real.

Here's my, "What if...?":

What if sportsmanship still meant something in American sports?

Wouldn't that be somethin'...

Methane Clathrate Bomb Detonating?

The Methane Clathrate Bomb may be detonating in earnest. Last summer scientists undertook an emergency research cruise in Arctic waters off of Siberia. They found methane emissions from the sea floor - methane clathrates, or methane frozen inside balls of ice - that were as much as 30x bigger than those found just two years earlier. Fields of methane bubbling up from the Arctic sea floor as side as a kilometer, or 0.6 miles, wide. Over half a mile wide!

I will complete this post later, but chew on these images:

November 2010 atmospheric methane:

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/MAPS/NH/ARCTpolar2010.11._AIRS_CH4_400.jpg

Nobember 2011 atmospheric methane:

ftp://asl.umbc.edu/pub/yurganov/methane/MAPS/NH/ARCTpolar2011.11._AIRS_CH4_400.jpg

An Open Letter re: Occupy Detroit

I want to thank Yusef for responding and sharing some time with me last night. Good conversation.

As was noted last night, coming together to break bread, eye to eye, is real; you can’t hide, pretend, be lost in your own stuff or you can, should, and will be called on it. This highlights some of the difficulty in dealing with this Occupy Detroit process here in Detroit in reaching out to those who have organized it until now: it’s difficult to get a response.

Two men talking together is not going to solve the problems inherent in thousands of people attempting to come together to do good work, nor necessarily resolve anything in the moment. But it does create conditions for honest communication and perhaps a deeper understanding, partly arising out of give and take in the moment where intellectual and emotional responses interact immediately and the two modes are melded in time. E-mail and written communications do not allow for this.

Racism/~isms In Context

I do not oppose not using “occupy,” but I take a long, long view on all issues. None of what we do is any longer relevant outside of a very long term view. I do not mean to seem dismissive of the concerns others have on any given issue in any given debate; I very simply see many of the issues that divide us, intentionally or not, as being made irrelevant by larger forces over time. The climate and energy issues are so far advanced that designing a survivable future is now in a critical response phase. We don’t have time to solve food, race, and economic issues as separate issues. We don’t have time to solve them as integrated issues. We only have time to design a different future. The beauty of this is a sustainable future cannot co-exist with racism, classism, ageism or any of the other issues we choose to separate ourselves by. These fault lines are largely irrelevant in the sense that a fisherman on a beach working to repair his net even as a tsunami approaches has chosen to focus on the wrong thing. You deal with the emergency first, survival second because there is no survival if you fail to get through the emergency.

We are in an emergency.

Climate is changing so much faster than many seem to understand, and fewer still understand the implications of that. We will be living in chaos long before we reach any given milestone because it is the extremes that get you. Long before the average temperature is 3C higher than in 1850, ecosystems will be destroyed by the 20 days or more of 100F temperatures of an otherwise livable summer, e.g. Ask Texas. The emergency is already here and mitigating it is a multi-decade process, at best. If the methane deposits in the Arctic have already begun a self-propagating decline, we may have already lost the battle – and there are signs that is the case.

The emergency is already here. The scope of that emergency means it is all hands to the fire hoses and bucket brigades; nothing else is relevant.

Racism is not irrelevant in and of itself. It is relevant to how we got where we are; it is relevant to who we are; it is relevant to our daily lives and our immediate futures. But it is not relevant as a primary tool to address the emergency. We cannot undo racism in time frames that equal surviving the emergency. The same can be said for any other divisive issue. It’s a bit like how our vision works: sometimes to see something most clearly we have to look slightly to the side. Focusing on racism, or economic justice, food justice, or environmental justice, etc., is a focus that makes it more difficult to see the full extent of the emergency.

It is this longer term perspective as to what should be dominating our conversations in order to address the emergency that is behind everything I say and do. It is this I attempted to share with Yusef last night.

The Use of Occupy

As a former teacher of English as a Foreign Language, I can boil teaching language down to one simple observation: context is everything. I viscerally respond to the banishment of words because of a context that is not always applicable. Is it a fight we need to have? If in Detroit the term is so offensive, then I guess it should be changed, but we have tongues, teeth, a larynx and lungs to communicate with. Can the offensiveness of the term not be acknowledged, sensitivity to that be offered, yet still retain the word? Are not the offended under some responsibility to understand the use in context, and choose not to be offended when no offense is offered? Is this sort of conversation not what communication is supposed to allow? Is tolerance not the responsibility of all? Frankly, why should I not be offended if a person takes offense when I have not offered any and forces me to abandon language that is otherwise appropriate?

Our actions are not words. Both sides of any argument about connotation have legitimate stances: The offended consider the user of a given word to be intolerant, the user of a word not meant to give offense finds those offended intolerant. Perhaps the tie goes to the former. I mean only to sketch my intellectual ambivalence to the objection to words. I am frustrated that communication cannot allow us to defuse such emotive booby traps.

But how does one not accede to a people whose ancestors have been enslaved, who are the most affected by the current economic slavery? This is obviously a deeper issue than my distaste for not accepting words in their context or the desire to keep a visual/verbal consistency with all the other “occupy” processes evolving. Perhaps in Detroit the time needed to defuse this particular word bomb is a waste of time. Perhaps this needs to be made clear to the GA of Occupy Detroit. There are alternatives. Unified Detroit in Solidarity with Occupy Wall St., for example.

If the GA ultimately chooses not to change it (though given the process of consensus that is a near impossibility… more on that later), I wonder at what is lost if what is now called Occupy Detroit is not joined by the people I know to be doing elegant and important work in this city. If the naming cannot be resolved, what then? If this nascent “movement” should become a vehicle for global mobilization of the oppressed, and Detroit sits out, what does that mean? What are the implications? I come back to the emergency. A survivable future is a global solution. It is a systemic solution and if any given part of the system does not achieve sustainability, ultimately the entire system fails.

Ultimately, this kind of discussion is keeping us from focusing on the emergency and at some point we will have to prioritize or let the world burn and us along with it.

I am frustrated by the opposition to Occupy Detroit for one very simple reason, that to me is obvious, but what I believe to be obvious is perhaps my own ignorance: The consensus decision-making process, as I understand it, makes the dissenter the most powerful person in the room so long as their dissent is legitimate. It is the decision-making process most likely to address dissent because of the ability to block any action given legitimate grounds. This is why I fail to understand why those of you who would seek to rename or refocus Occupy Detroit choose non-participation and a separate process.  You are abandoning your power in the process.

Using Consensus to Address Your Concerns

It is very important to the success of consensus to understand the process and have training in the use of it. At the GA meeting it was clear many did not understand the process. E.g., anyone could have chose to apply the “block” to insist on a fuller conversation about locations. Nobody did, but there was complaint about the decision being “rammed” through when, in fact, it had not been. Nobody blocked, so it passed. The process functioned as designed. Jeff Debruyn left and criticized later. He failed to understand his power to change what was happening lay in participation, not disengagement.

The GA didn’t fail, those who abandoned the process did. Fail is too strong, really, since it seems it was a lack of knowledge of the process that resulted in non-use of its conventions. In fact, those who organized the GA failed, if anyone did, when they didn’t train the GA attendees sufficiently in process. This supports the critique that Occupy Detroit may be moving too fast. Had they made training their first agenda item and taken time to walk through at least the basics of the process perhaps none would have left feeling the process failed.

I hope the Detroit Facilitation guild will engage and believe steps are being taken to make it so. A link: Consensus Decision-making

Highlights:

* The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Through consensus, we are not only working to achieve better solutions, but also to promote the growth of community and trust.

* With consensus people can and should work through differences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is possible for one person's insights or strongly held beliefs to sway the whole group. No ideas are lost, each member's input is valued as part of the solution.

* Consensus does not mean that everyone thinks that the decision made is necessarily the best one possible, or even that they are sure it will work. What it does mean is that in coming to that decision, no one felt that her/his position on the matter was misunderstood or that it wasn't given a proper hearing.

* For consensus to be a positive experience, it is best if the group has 1) common values, 2) some skill in group process and conflict resolution, or a commitment to let these be facilitated, 3) commitment and responsibility to the group by its members and 4) sufficient time for everyone to participate in the process.

* During discussion a proposal for resolution is put forward. It is amended and modified through more discussion, or withdrawn if it seems to be a dead end. During this discussion period it is important to articulate differences clearly. It is the responsibility of those who are having trouble with a proposal to put forth alternative suggestions.

* The fundamental right of consensus is for all people to be able to express themselves in their own words and of their own will. The fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assure others of their right to speak and be heard.

* If a decision has been reached, or is on the verge of being reached that you cannot support, there are several ways to express your objections:

Non-support ("I don't see the need for this, but I'll go along.")

Reservations ('I think this may be a mistake but I can live with it.")

Standing aside ("I personally can't do this, but I won't stop others from doing it. ")

Blocking ("I cannot support this or allow the group to support this. It is immoral." If a final decision violates someone's fundamental moral values they are obligated to block consensus.)

Withdrawing from the group. Obviously, if many people express non-support or reservations or stand aside or leave the group, it may not be a viable decision even if no one directly blocks it. This is what is known as a "lukewarm" consensus and it is just as desirable as a lukewarm beer or a lukewarm bath.

The key to re-naming Occupy Detroit is to be there. By not being there you are choosing the last option above, which is also the least desirable. Their use of “occupy” is not your use. They may not see the need to change it because they may have little or no sense as to whether this is the objection of a few or the objection of many. Those objecting to the name and speaking from outside the process have very little opportunity to affect change within the group. But by being in the group, you become one of those who must be heard. Your objection immediately achieves validity by your mere presence for you are a co-equal leader of the group. If outside, you have little means to effectively shape the group dynamic.

More so, there is a name committee. If you are on that committee and can speak persuasively to your concerns, this issue may be resolved before even taken to the GA as it is likely a clear, preferably unanimous, suggestion from the committee will eventually be adopted by the GA.

A note on the statement by Yusef and Jenny: Declarations and statements are not really how consensus is done. Much as Yusef and I meeting face-to-face made discussion of all this more immediate, more real, more meaningful and more effective, such is life in consensus. Rather than presenting a statement, you sit in proximity, look in people’s eyes and speak sincerely and personally of your concerns. You have to be there.

This is one time when exerting pressure from the outside is the least likely option to succeed.

Occupy Wall St. as a Two-pronged Attack – What About Detroit’s issues?

There is no agenda because everything is on the agenda.

It is vital to building solidarity between those currently critiquing from outside the process and those within the process that those outside understand Occupy Wall St., et al., is intentionally devoid of specific issues. This does not mean it cannot be successful or that it is not valid. It is the means by which all voices may join and be heard. If you set an agenda, those whose concerns are not on that agenda have no reason to participate. The “movement” is about activating and motivating, it is about inclusion, it is about coming together in one circle to address all issues rather than some people’s issues.

When you ask Occupy Wall St., et al., to specify, you are robbing it of its essence and its power. It is a consensus model, not a debate, not an election, not a win/lose. Within the group and within consensus, present your issue, ask that it be addressed, find the means to address it. There is no need to ask for an agenda, your presence puts your issue on the agenda.

There is a committee to address specific actions. Perhaps it is the means to bring specific issues to the fore. Perhaps those meeting Sunday have an opportunity to form a Detroit-specific committee to ensure local issues get supported by the GA. Whatever the means, there is nothing about the structure of Occupy Wall St., et al., that in any way prevents or interferes with addressing location-specific issues. Bring it to the group, ask for support, and you will likely get actions implemented with the support and assistance of people who otherwise would have been ignorant of the issue you raise.

Make your issue everyone’s issue: be there. Thread actions and activities already progressing in Detroit together via this process. In fact, this sort of process is exactly what Detroit has needed. We talk all the time about silos; we see self-serving choices; we compete for dollars, attention and people. I thought the People’s Movement Assembly might bring the silos together, but so far have not seen this materialize. If “Whateverthename Detroit” and the PMA merge into one process, then all other processes merge into that, we potentially have a true Detroit People’s Movement. Directionality doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the various silos become one silo in which the Food Justice Task Force, e.g., becomes a committee within the whole. The same for the Environmental Justice work, Peace Zones for Life… all of it. Bring ALL voices into one process, prioritize together, implement together.

Imagine such a model supplanting the traditional governmental structure of the city! No mayor, no city council, just neighbors talking to neighbors and sub-groups taking on challenges. Imagine each neighborhood being a committee within a city-wide whole? And that committee having sub-committees?

Mmm…mm…mm. Tasty!

I see sustainability breaking out all over!

There are some difficulties in applying consensus large-scale… but will leave that to those more expert than I.

Occupy Wall St., et al., Doesn’t Really Get it, Either

Above I stated the process intentionally has no agenda which means theoretically sustainability is on the agenda. The problem with that is it relegates sustainability to co-equal status with all other issues. Ecosystem services, however are not an issue, they are the source of life. It is vital ecosystem services become the lense through which all other issues must be viewed; they are the litmus test for whether an action is taken or not. If a proposal to address racism is not sustainable, it is not a solution to racism. If a solution to economic inequality is not sustainable (e.g., let’s build all the homeless a  new house), it’s not a solution.

Whatever movement it is that ultimately brings us all together must first and foremost set as it’s primary objective the preservation of the ecosystem. Failure to do so is an existential threat to all biota of the planet. Link: The Law  of the Rights of Mother Earth

Law of the Rights of Mother Earth (Spanish: Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra)… "gives the 'Mother Earth' the character of collective subject of public interest, to ensure their rights". The law defines Mother Earth as follows: "the dynamic living system made ​​up of indivisible community of all living systems and living beings, interrelated, interdependent and complementary, which share a common destiny. Mother Earth is considered sacred by the cosmovisions of the indigenous originary campesino nations and peoples."

I argue it is the preservation of the ecosystem that is *the* all-unifying issue. I also argue that no sustainable system can co-exist with any of the ~isms we work to attenuate. Thus, designing sustainably inherently and automatically eliminates all of them. Consensus decision-making acts as a means to attenuate selfishness, divisiveness, self-interest, racism, classism, etc. We simply design them all away, solving all problems simultaneously.

I will explore the mechanics of this in another post.

Climate Reality Project 24 Hour Live Stream

Current State of the Arctic Sea Ice: Arctic Sea Ice Predictions Update II

My Original Predictions

Arctic Sea Ice Extent = 4.2m km2  +/- 0.2m km2
Arctic Sea Ice Area = 2.95m km2 +/- 120k km2
Arctic Sea ice Volume = 5,500 km3 +/-500 km3

Numbers (approximate) @ 8/22:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent = 5.2m km2
Arctic Sea Ice Area = 3.269m km2
Arctic Sea Ice Volume = 6,500 km3

Current Numbers (approximate)

Arctic Sea Ice Extent = 4.5m km2
Arctic Sea Ice Area = 2.994m km2
Arctic Sea Ice Volume = 6,400 - 6,500 km3

Sea Ice Extent
The final 2007 minimum extent compared to the present make it seem doubtful a new extent record will be reached unless we have unusual heat and ideal weather for melt over the next two weeks. From Cryosphere Today:

The NSIDC Extent graph shows '11 tracking '09 very closely with current extent roughly 4.5 - 4.6m sq. km.with 2 - 300k to go to match '07.

If melt continues down to where we see more compacted ice in the images above, a rough estimate of the areas of compact ice in the '11 images correspond well to the '07 extent, so we'll be looking at a near-record or new record, if so.

Melt Factors
The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is mildly positive

and expected to be mildly positive or mildly negative till the middle of the month which should help reduce ice loss. Current sea ice drift patterns seem to encourage ice loss and a possible reduction in extent. The large area of loose ice looks to be moving toward the center of the pack; given how loose it is, it could reduce to 1/4 its current area by rough estimate. The yellow box indicates an area of very little ice, also, appearing to be a place where sea ice goes to die this season. There also is a flow from both of Greenland toward the Fram Strait which would indicate significant transport out of the Arctic Ocean. These patterns can change quickly and may only be significant if they persist.

Air temps where the ice pack is sitting are hovering around 0C. Since sea ice is slightly colder than freezing, there is probably still a net melting effect from air temps. Sea surface temperatures look to be about ice temperature, but warm around the ice. I suspect also under it yet since the water around the ice pack is reading warmer than the ice, but in the area of the pack is reading about ice temp. Sounds like a sampling problem?

Sea Ice Area
This measure is more important than extent for assessing current state of the ice, but is more difficult to measure. Current analyses put ice area at or near the '07 record. The melt season could another 2 - 2.5 weeks. Even with favorable-to-neutral conditions for low melt rates, a new record here is almost a guarantee.

According to Cryosphere Today, ice area is already below 3 m sq km.

Ice area measures the total surface area of the ice excluding areas of water between floes. Given much of the ice around the edges of the main pack is very thinly distributed, and the ice is very thin, we should see enough melt to set a new record. less than 10k sq km /day will take area below 2.9m sq. km.

Sea Ice Volume
Sea ice volume is further from a record than area and extent are...

and this image from Sept 14, 2010 supports this.

PIOMAS does show ice volume already tracking below the '07 minimum.

The PIOMAS models should at least comparable to themselves year-to-year, but there are doubts about the new model as illustrated from comments at RealClimate's thread on Arctic Sea Ice.

I have reservations about the volume numbers and ice thickness models. The piomas version 2 model that was introduced this spring shows considerably higher thickness values. The navy, for example (http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif) reports two to three meter thick ice all around the north pole. Russian and American science vessels recently met at the pole and reported actual thickness of a meter or less.

Neven has info on a report from the Polar Stern as it reached the North Pole.

The first ice thickness measurements confirm this: in 2011 as well as in 2007 most of the ice has an ice thickness of 0.9 m.

A recent post from the polar Stern (in German) speaks of the condition of the ice as being very poor.  They are having a very hard time finding ice thick and intact enough to do their research activities.

The graph below from that post illustrates the thinness of the ice. Of course, anyone who has seen footage of Arctic ice, particularly from below, knows it is anything but one large flat ice floe. The ice gets squished together and stacks up in piles and ridges. What is interesting is that old footage used to show large blocks of multi-meter ice that was contiguous. Now images and film I see only shows jumbled up ice, as if the only thick ice exists because of ice motion and not freezing. The spikiness in this graph encourages me to consider this as a serious possibility.

 

Also, that spikiness is reflected in the images we see of the "cottage cheese" pattern of ice I have discussed earlier in which individual floes are surrounded by what can only be thinner ice.

Unfortunately, the MODIS images have been too cloudy to get a good look at the ice for a while. This radar image gives a fair sense of the ice and with more detail and accuracy than the Cryosphere Today images.


In fairness to PIOMAS, new models take time to calibrate and refine. If the changes they made this year are an improvement, I still think it is certain they are overestimating ice volume for now. Still, lower than 2010? Perhaps not. We didn't have a strong melt this summer.

It's a mixed bag. A probable new record in Ice Area, a slightly possible new record in Ice Extent and a new 2nd lowest Ice Volume. I do think the volume numbers are not  highly reliable and the first-had reports do indicate a likely new Ice Volume record, but that would also mean the numbers for 2010 volume were too low or that 2011 numbers are far too high. We may have to wait a year or two to find out.