Home > Environment > Videoconference: the upload

Videoconference: the upload

May 31st, 2008

I’m putting up part 1 of the talk I gave in Adelaide last week, on prerecorded DVD. I’ve posted it on YouTube for the moment.

I tried posting directly within WordPress, but that didn’t work well and I thought that even if I used FTP to put the file up, the effect on server load would be pretty bad. So, I’d appreciate any alternative suggestions.

Parts 2-4 are over the fold

Here’s the Powerpoint file (8.3 MB)

Categories: Environment Tags:
  1. Andrew
    May 31st, 2008 at 13:01 | #1

    Hi John, long time reader, first time commenter.

    Just wanted to say congratulations on the great work you are doing Re: cutting down your air travel in favour of video conferencing. I had the oppurtnity to give a Keynote to my ENVM2200 class last week in which I made mention of the great work you are doing.

    Please continue to keep us posted with your thoughts on and experiences with this endeavour.

  2. Scott
    May 31st, 2008 at 16:09 | #2

    That looks great Prof. Could this really be the start of something profound. I may never have to study on campus again :)

    I hope this is the first of many to come.

    On your talk, I wonder what you mean by maximal mitigation, in simple CO2-e terms. I know climate change is comprised of myriad factors, but I wish to isolate radiative forcing as a parameter we need to optimise.

    Scientists and engineers talk about reversing radiative forcing. Science and technology infrastucture combined with the disturbingly poorly understood capacity of soils and biomass to serve as carbon sinks and depots may lead to some technological synergies and the capacity to mitigate CO2-e forcing far beyond the projections your talk propagated.

    Wouldn’t you think, given our closeness in time to tipping points in your convex cost curve, that maximal mitigation is priority for Australian government. Call it adaptation if you like, but without global mitigation beyond of say negative 3 CO2-e per year over the next fifty years, the uncertainty is too great to plan any adaptation repsonse.

    If you have some time, I would also really appreciate hearing your views on how offsets might be able to assist with such a target.

  3. swio
    May 31st, 2008 at 16:48 | #3

    Is there any downside to posting on Youtube ? For the blog format I cannot see much advantage to posting the file directly on the server while there would inevitably be alot of problems. Server load, bandwidth and probably worst of all would be managing all the different file formats. Unless you are posting something that needs to be in higher resolution than youtube can provide (unlikely for a presentation) you’ll only create headaches for yourself and your readers if you try other formats.

  4. jquiggin
    May 31st, 2008 at 18:02 | #4

    Swio, that was the conclusion I reached, so I’m glad to have some support for it.

    Scott, I generally agree, but will need to develop these points at more length

    Andrew thanks for making your first comment such a kind one.

  5. May 31st, 2008 at 20:21 | #5

    Is there any downside to posting on Youtube ?

    Not really. The only downsides are video quality (YouTube still uses the Flash MX Sorensen codec I believe) and the 10 minute limit.

  6. Scott
    May 31st, 2008 at 22:08 | #6

    I should clarify. I meant negative 3 parts per million CO2-e per year above.

    This might be a bit of a shock to the system, but it also might not be too many years to get things moving in that direction if the going gets really tough.

    Now that we are trading carbon, I would really like to see what an economist’s justifications might be for any “offset” payments that could possibly go some way to mopping up the liabilities of the rest of us.

    If it actually works out like that…

    It would be costly, but it is not inconceivable that some of Australia’s leading biomass, chemical and solar conversion engineers could contribute substantially to a -3ppm CO2-e/yr global target in fourty or fifty years time and actually reduce CO2-e ahead of some of the more dangerous points of no return.

    Given that you mentioned it, and noone is buying renewable infrastructure in these parts today, and that the race will soon be on to make scarce carbon liabilities, I’m really wondering what specific roles “offsets” in particular can play in this script?

    Your thoughts are immensely appreciated.

  7. philip travers
    June 1st, 2008 at 12:34 | #7

    The one surprising thing you said John was the optimism of economists rather than the two apparent sides seeing any solutions.On that,I have felt kinder to people like yourself.Having picked grapes,at Colignan-Nangiloc on the Murray and know the disturbances of the area including salinity estimates, and, what they have done to farm plans,I think my input here has to be noticed,because,at other times people in of the area around Mildura have taken notice of what I have suggested,and,yet I still think, there are more options for those along the Murray.In the analysis of rainfall for example,and other water and moisture related measurements,there are some combinations of such,that need further refinement.For example,in the grape harvesting areas,there were two distinct farming method processes that would effect local evapo-transpiration processes and measurement,and, using these farming methods ,hasn’t been explored.The organic type growers,do not normally spray their leaf structure with sulphur,because of the voluntary ban on chemical use,whereas,the non-organic were spraying their leaf structure to get at the grapes earlier.Given the total leaf cover involved and the obvious retaining of the moisture by shade from these still green leaves,anyone,upon first impression would conclude that non-spraying does retain the potential for longer moist micro-climate profile.Mulching has also been universally applied.At one stage,whilst picking fruit,I was talking to a young woman,daughter of a Nursery-blockie, the potential of the use of acetyl alcohol from palm trees.This stuff I thought at the time, lightly sprayed on leaf matter would allow functional amounts of evapo-transpiration,whilst making leaf structure able to withstand higher temperatures.I must also point out that, technologies like EXAIR Vortex TUBES need to be explored as as a temperature distress reliever in and of farm production. And another thought ,that has been increasing in importance for me on this matter,is the apparent social isolation on farm,is blinding people to a real solution,in all this,which could lower prices,stress and make for maximal farm return. And that is simply take the work from the farm,like rice growing to somewhere else,until it is time to plant in optimal conditions.Just a comparison between the population of Sydney and rice growing areas,initially proves, the worthwhile of exploring such,but may still be the longest move of a production cycle.For example,rice can grow anywhere in a climate and moisture profile in containers, until its full potential outcome requires soil. So, why not grow it under orange orchard trees with overhead spray systems dripping,on the surface of rivers and dams under shade and a occasional spray of filtered water,on a football field or sports ground where water is more plentiful….till finally moving into town,on rail platforms,,floating on the Yarra River,and being towed up and down by University oarspersons!? What I am saying is essentially I do not think there will be an increase,in costs,if farmers,rice farmers in particular,thought outside their farming lands and water allocations,and like old sheep and cattle farmers hit the road for where the moisture water is.Then because they only then need to use their land and water supplies to optimally engage the growth of rice plants,there may well be less need for a water allocation.There is also a likelihood to have strategic partners for rice -growing,as in say a rice using area in a city wanting to be part of the rice growing.Transport costs will be minimal,if back loading and strategic use of commercial and other transport systems evolve..even school buses.If a transport and water use availabilty mapping process using the seasonal and climatic information in relationship to,rice growing areas was fully modeled,then,rice could be taken,without serious anxiety to where the water moisture profile was.Australians are not thinking too cleverly on these matters yet,because of the obvious reality there are no real experts,and plenty of information cul-de-sacs unto a breakthrough in potential relieves the strain.I have tried to do something than build another one of those with these words!My heart is in this problem,and,I cannot ignore giving it my best go!

  8. melanie
    June 1st, 2008 at 17:55 | #8

    I’ve enjoyed watching parts 1-3. When I clicked on part 4 I got the message ‘no longer available’!

  9. melanie
    June 1st, 2008 at 17:57 | #9

    Oops! Seems to be working now.

  10. Aidan
    June 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 | #10

    Good on ya.

    Although it represents more work, I reckon an unmoving camera on you and editing in still images from your slides might produce a more readable and easier on the eye presentation. This is not hard to do.

  11. June 5th, 2008 at 19:21 | #11

    Hi John – It’s fantastic that you’re doing this!

    Just by the way, omnisio.com is a site that allows longer uploades, and has a nice way of synchronizing with slides. I’ve watched a bunch of stuff there, and it’s quite a bit better than YouTube, at least from the viewer’s point of view. Not sure how much harder it is for the person uploading files.

Comments are closed.