2 stories
·
0 followers

Another ARRL member lost

1 Comment and 2 Shares

Last week, I went to lunch with a ham friend of mine. This fellow has been a ham for more than 60 years, and an ARRL member for most of that time. As we were waiting for our food, he says to me, “My ARRL membership is up soon, and I don’t think that I’m going to renew.”

When I asked him why, he said, “Well, it used to be that you sent them 30 bucks and you got a book. Now, you send them 60 bucks, and you get nothing.”

It’s more than just that, though. He said that he hardly reads QST anymore. “There’s just not that much of interest to me in QST,” he said. And, he went on, you have to read it with a special reader.

This, and a recent episode of the DX Mentor podcast featuring ARRL CEO David Minster, NA2AA, has got me thinking that the reason ARRL membership is shrinking is that it’s losing touch with its membership and with potential members. Two things stuck out for me. The first was Minster’s description of his operation of the super station on Bonaire during some DX contest. I suppose it’s a normal thing for a rich guy like him, who is pulling down $350,000 a year from the ARRL, but how many hams are going to get a chance to do this?

The second thing that stuck out is that at about the 1:33:30 mark, DX Mentor host, Bill, AJ8B, commented, “It appears to me that there’s a real strong growth in The Technician Class license. So, overall, that’s got to be pretty exciting.”

Minster re-directed the conversation immediately into a discussion of ARRL membership. He said, “I get asked the question pretty regularly that you know, there’s 750,000 hams and there are only 150,000 in the ARRL. (Note: It’s well below 150,000 right now.) You guys are terrible.”

He tried to blow this off by noting that many members of the Mormon Church and Orthodox Jewish communities get licensed for emergency preparedness and disaster communications. At He said flat out, “They’re not hams.” To blow off anyone with an amateur radio license as “not a real ham” just doesn’t seem like the right attitude to me, and isn’t emergency and preparedness communications supposed to be one of the pillars of amateur radio?

Now, he did go on to say that new Techs need mentors to help them get more involved with amateur radio. I agree completely with him on that, and I tell everyone that takes my class to consider me their mentor, and if they ever have a question or need help, to contact me. I’m proud of the fact that many people who’ve taken my classes are now active hams and having fun with amateur radio.

At any rate, the impression I get is that Minster isn’t all that concerned with membership. He certainly didn’t give any indication of that in his DX Mentor appearance, and I don’t see the ARRL taking any serious steps to increase membership. Instead of truly being the “national association for amateur radio,” they’re becoming an ever-smaller association of guys they consider to be “real hams.”

They’ve lost touch with long-time members like my friend and who knows how many potential members. What this means is that, in the future, ARRL membership will continue to fall, both in the percentage of licensed radio amateurs and absolute numbers.

Read the whole story
Pethrin
1 day ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
JayM
1 day ago
reply
Meh. Lots of bitter people out there. I still gladly support the ARRL.
Atlanta, GA
fxer
17 hours ago
Is “butter people” a ham term?
JayM
8 hours ago
Hahaha. Bitter. Love autocorrect. Not.

New research suggests plants might be able to absorb more CO2 from human activities than previously expected

3 Shares

New research published in Science Advances paints an uncharacteristically upbeat picture for the planet. This is because more realistic ecological modeling suggests the world's plants may be able to take up more atmospheric CO2 from human activities than previously predicted.

Despite this headline finding, the environmental scientists behind the research are quick to underline that this should in no way be taken to mean the world's governments can take their foot off the brake in their obligations to reduce carbon emissions as fast as possible. Simply planting more trees and protecting existing vegetation is not a golden-bullet solution but the research does underline the multiple benefits to conserving such vegetation.

"Plants take up a substantial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) every year, thereby slowing down the detrimental effects of climate change, but the extent to which they will continue this CO2 uptake into the future has been uncertain," explains Dr. Jürgen Knauer, who headed the research team led by the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment at Western Sydney University.

"What we found is that a well-established climate model that is used to feed into global climate predictions made by the likes of the IPCC predicts stronger and sustained carbon uptake until the end of the 21st century when it accounts for the impact of some critical physiological processes that govern how plants conduct photosynthesis.

"We accounted for aspects like how efficiently carbon dioxide can move through the interior of the leaf, how plants adjust to changes in temperatures, and how plants most economically distribute nutrients in their canopy. These are three really important mechanisms that affect a plant's ability to 'fix' carbon, yet they are commonly ignored in most global models" said Dr. Knauer.

Photosynthesis is the scientific term for the process in which plants convert—or "fix"—CO2 into the sugars they use for growth and metabolism. This carbon fixing serves as a natural climate change mitigator by reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere; it is this increased uptake of CO2 by vegetation that is the primary driver of an increasing land carbon sink reported over the last few decades.

However, the beneficial effect of climate change on vegetation carbon uptake might not last forever and it has long been unclear how vegetation will respond to CO2, temperature and changes in rainfall that are significantly different from what is observed today.

Scientists have thought that intense climate change such as more intense droughts and severe heat could significantly weaken the sink capacity of terrestrial ecosystems, for example.

In the study published this week, however, Knauer and colleagues present results from their modeling study set to assess a high-emission climate scenario, to test how vegetation carbon uptake would respond to global climate change until the end of the 21st century.

The authors tested different versions of the model that varied in their complexity and realism of how plant physiological processes are accounted for. The simplest version ignored the three critical physiological mechanisms associated with photosynthesis while the most complex version accounted for all three mechanisms.

The results were clear: the more complex models that incorporated more of our current plant physiological understanding consistently projected stronger increases of vegetation carbon uptake globally. The processes accounted for re-enforced each other, so that effects were even stronger when accounted for in combination, which is what would happen in a real-world scenario.

Silvia Caldararu, Assistant Professor in Trinity's School of Natural Sciences, was involved in the study. Contextualizing the findings and their relevance, she said, "Because the majority of terrestrial biosphere models used to assess the global carbon sink are located at the lower end of this complexity range, accounting only partially for these mechanisms or ignoring them altogether, it is likely that we are currently underestimating climate change effects on vegetation as well as its resilience to changes in climate.

"We often think about climate models as being all about physics, but biology plays a huge role and it is something that we really need to account for.

"These kinds of predictions have implications for nature-based solutions to climate change such as reforestation and afforestation and how much carbon such initiatives can take up. Our findings suggest these approaches could have a larger impact in mitigating climate change and over a longer time period than we thought.

"However, simply planting trees will not solve all our problems. We absolutely need to cut down emissions from all sectors. Trees alone cannot offer humanity a get out of jail free card."

More information: Jürgen Knauer et al, Higher global gross primary productivity under future climate with more advanced representations of photosynthesis, Science Advances (2023). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adh9444. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh9444

Journal information: Science Advances

Citation: New research suggests plants might be able to absorb more CO2 from human activities than previously expected (2023, November 17) retrieved 23 November 2023 from <a href="https://phys.org/news/2023-11-absorb-co2-human-previously.html" rel="nofollow">https://phys.org/news/2023-11-absorb-co2-human-previously.html</a>
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
Read the whole story
Pethrin
511 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete