Ming the Mechanic:
Arctic resists warming
The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
 Arctic resists warming2006-11-18 20:45
15 comments
by Flemming Funch

LA Times:
An international team of scientists reported Thursday that rising temperatures are steadily transforming the Arctic -- warming millions of square miles of permafrost, promoting lush greenery on previously arid tundras and steadily shrinking the annual sea ice.

Yet the researchers also found new patterns of cooling ocean currents and prevailing winds that suggested the Arctic, long considered a bellwether of global warming, may be reverting in some ways to more normal conditions not seen since the 1970s.

Taken together, these findings may be evidence, the researchers said, of the region struggling to keep its balance, as rising temperatures slowly overturn the long-established order of seasonal variations.

"This is a region that is fighting back," said lead author Jacqueline Richter-Menge, a civil engineer at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H. "There are things that showed signs of going back to norms, trying to right themselves under very dire circumstances."...
I'm glad the arctic seems to have a mind of its own.


[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic]

Category:  

15 comments

18 Nov 2006 @ 21:17 by swanny : Evidence
this would almost seem to be concrete evidence of
earth/gaia consciousness or conscience though over a greater duration
or response than human consciousness or conscience.
Interesting...
Evidence of a global being?
I wonder if "communication" is possible though give the wide difference
or temporal spread?

Oh have you seen the new "lightstreamer ajax server" its all a bit greek to me
though too many numbers spoil the soup sort of thing.

Thanks

ed  

19 Nov 2006 @ 15:28 by ming : lightstreamer
{link:http://www.lightstreamer.com/|That} looks interesting, indeed. But sounds expensive. If it were open source in some fashion, that would be cool.  

19 Nov 2006 @ 15:32 by swanny : Science
Well scientists, which many suspect are in a large part the "cause" of the
human contribution to global warming, have come up with a somewhat good, but
boneheadish solution to it. A shade, of sulfer dioxide (acid rain no less). Now I'm starting to wonder should we
really leave the planets welfare in the hands of scientists or does the earth itself have a better idea of its health needs. I mean is this really the time to experiment when the earth has billions of years of experience to it. Well don't say you weren't warned, "again". Personally I think I trust the earth itself more with its not my welfare more than the scientists. Not that I care much anymore either way at this point in my life.

News article = http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/11/16/crutzen-climate.html

I mean why don't they get real jobs? I hear Mcdonalds needs people.
And the moneys not bad.

sir  

19 Nov 2006 @ 15:46 by swanny : Water...
Well if by chance I did care
I would say what we really need is a way to "communicate" with the planet.
In my research I have found that the easiest route to this, may be thru
"water". Apparently water has "demostrated" some capacity for ? well not
sure what to call it but it is a latent kind of form of communication.
And thats my story and I may or may not stick to it.

sir  

19 Nov 2006 @ 18:48 by swanny : Weather
I mean for gosh sakes these guys can't even get the weather
right more than half the time and now they want to go tinkering
and experimenting in the upper atmosphere.
The science of whole systems and earth systems is just in its
infancy so lets ease off until we know what we're doing and how
it will effect things down the line. Sure we don't have time
but thats because science got us in this whole mess to begin with
or much of it. I mean wheres the preliminary research then on
"spherical systems." And what about "seventh generation" effect.
Trust a scientist? when they gave us mad cow disease and chemical warfare
and nuculear bombs. Well sure why not, all we've got to lose is humanity
and thats no loss, at least to this date.

Sure... Lets "solve" global warming by "global poisoning" that'll teach us...

sorry.... grumble grumble having a bad year...
no not all scientists are bad... the natural sciences are actually
rather good...

sorry.... I'll go soak my head....



sir  

19 Nov 2006 @ 20:08 by swanny : Nuclear Winter
okay the truth
the reason that it pisses me off so
is that I thought of something similar
a couple of months ago...
In the seventies they talked of "nuclear winter"
a phenomeun that would have occurred from
total global nuclear war fare.
that fortuneately passed or didn't transpire but
I had thought well okay what if we set of a number
of limited and strategic war heads just to stir up the "dust"
enough to bring back the temp to the norm....
the problem with both these "cures" though I think is the
cure being worse than the disease...

so I suppose... back to the drawing board.


sir  

19 Nov 2006 @ 20:46 by swanny : Quick Fixes
The problem with "both" these suggestions is that they're both
somewhat unpredictable "quick fixes". They address the symptom "global warming" and not the problem which I suspect is a quality and standard and life style issue. What we need is a concentrated global shift in human life style choice that is more in harmony with the natural gaia system. Both these suggestions if by chance they might work would only buy us some time which would eventually lead us back to the present symptom and maybe other unforseen consequences. We need rather though a long term change in behaviour, thinking and what have you. Therefore I would opt for Gaias solution how ever long in coming it might be, because humans seldom change except under crisis.  

30 Jan 2007 @ 13:36 by Rick @63.237.20.195 : Arctic resists warming
Now isn't that a fine bit of science!? The Arctic has a mind of it's own. It remembers the "good old days" and longs to go back. Could there be "new patterns of cooling ocean currents and prevailing winds" just because the earth is beginning to enter into a cooling phase as it has in the past and will continue to in the future? I know nothing about the "mind of the Arctic", but I do know that if you compare the current ice coverage map (found off the NOAA home page) to the map for the same date last year, you will see MORE ice coverage on the current map for the Arctic region.

Rick  

30 Jan 2007 @ 14:40 by swanny : Warming/Cooling
Well whether its warming or cooling it is perhaps not the reality as yet
We are though seeing some increasing weather instability on a global basis
than is evinced by my recollection of the near past 50 years.
50 years though is fairly insignificant true in terms of planetary terms.
and even 200 years but then okay a transistion of some sort seems to be occuring
whether warming or cooling 200 years wouldn't tell the tale or be significant
the instability though is some cause for concern and also whether we are a contributing factor as well.
This kind of situation though, should it be left to hindsight to determine or is it prudent and proactive to examine our possible involvement, whether large or small?
I suppose then the question is neither warming or cooling but does human activity effect or influence the weather and if so how and by how much?
And in what time frame? Pronouncements of warming or cooling then are missing
the point thus and do not address the real concern and whether much could be done about it anyway. If we, humanity are causing weather instability how and why and what could be done to rectify such. I sure the data would clearly show afterall increased weather instability over the last 100 years in terms of actual events and not simply the result of better study and recording methods.
Weather being a pretty much in your face proposition.


swanny  

30 Jan 2007 @ 15:24 by ming : Arctic ice
Rick, you have a very selective way of viewing a site like NOAA. Despite it being a US government organization, it is quite clear and up front about what is going on. You see the development in the ice cover in the arctic in a page like {link:http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml|this}. Whether the ice cover goes a little up or down between each year is not the important part. It is the trend that counts. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see it is going down.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/climate-ice-seaice-extent-trend-sep06-sml.png

And, yes, there are natual {link:http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/essays_mcnutt.html|cycles}. Like, 1972-1976 were cold, 1977-1988 warm and 1989-2001 cold. But that doesn't change the general trend.

Of course I'd rather see proof that it somehow adjusts itself back to 'normal'.  

30 Jan 2007 @ 19:09 by bushman : Hmm,
Solar activity, and area of space. Frozen instantly Mamoths. Man didn't do that, or did he? Last nights show on Coast to Coast, had an intresting view on the situation.
{http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page1856.html?theme=light}

Anyway, don't you think theres enough evidence that someone has been trying to cool things down, I mean patents for solar scatering agents arnt enough? That someone with bucks is trying to send solar energy back out into space for over 10 years now? And just the other day I was reading that the gov wants to do just that, as if they havent been doing it already for the past 10 years. Then all the while, trying to get a foot hold on the middle east, where most the oil resorces are. Getting CO2 output down? Im sure, right, like how many tons of CO2 did Sudams scorched Earth policy dump out when all those oil wells were burning. And now they want to get the CO2 down, and they are burning and useing more oil than ever just to fight with Iraq, this is where most the CO2 is comeing from now, not the man who drives to work, not even industry world wide is close to how much CO2 the wars are producing now.  

30 Jan 2007 @ 19:34 by swanny : The Tsunami
Thanks Bushman interesting piece but...

According to my calculations...
this galactic event did somewhat or may already have occured.
If you consider the time it takes for our solar system to
circumnavigate the galaxy...
I think its about 250 million years
and you consider the age of the earth 3 or 4 billion years
then you consider the age of the mammalian species which
interestingly enough is also around 250 or 220 million years
then that would put the birth of mammals at that last rotation
of the galaxy and event that may have had its first anniversary around the
the time of the Dec 26, 2004 Tsunami in Indonesia...
Now this is all somewhat hypothetical but if you google the main
points you will come across data by others reaching similar conclusions.
As well the Mayans 2012 reference plays in somewhat and may actually have been
the Dec 26, 2004 Tsunami as well but the Mayans
didn't seem to have the benefit of telescopes and there calculations of the
Great Central Sun/Galaxy were rather far off in they calculated only a 2 million or 20,000 year orbit.
Now introducing humans as a subset of mammals you arrive at their presence
in the equation Im not sure about the numbers you know but humans or humanlike
species have about
a 10 million year presence on the scene... so humankind as a subset of
mammals has not completed one complete galactic rotation and only a small
fraction of one at that. Now sorry about the numbers mess perhaps, but its
hard to keep the emensity of it all in perspective. Actually it all sounds a bit perposterous but if you consider as our solar system rotates around the galaxy it can and might experience different
seasons equivalent though much longer to earths seasons caused by the earths rotation around the sun.

swanny  

30 Jan 2007 @ 20:02 by bushman : Maybe,
still, looking at the landscape, you can see it was more than just an earthquake and flood, to do what I see out here at 4800ft, one side of this planet was quick frozen, like less than over night. A CME from the sun, could punch a hole in the atmosphere and cause the vacuum of space to touch ground. What about hitting those clouds of dark matter that obscuers our view of the galactic core? Im one to believe man has been here since the first day it was safe to set foot on the planet after its creation, man has seen the earth destroyed at least 5 or 6 times. I think its in the Hopi prophesies.  

30 Jan 2007 @ 20:22 by swanny : 90%
Hmmmm interesting
that latest scientist climate report out today is suggesting human contribution
to the problem of being about 90%....
I find that hard to believe myself when you consider the emensity of the
planet. How can we in our puny efforts effect a rate of change or effect of 90%
How where?  

29 Apr 2016 @ 04:57 by Loree @188.143.232.32 : KAFTFjBIAw
Some people don’t want to write on ideas like yours. Thank you for taking a subject of today and making it unbrlstandadee for me to learn more about that I can use in everyday life.  

Other stories in
2009-11-01 16:35: Seven questions that keep physicists up at night
2008-10-14 20:33: Where are the podcars?
2008-07-05 00:08: Self-Organized Criticality
2008-05-16 13:34: The Universe as God
2008-01-11 19:00: Richard Dawkins comes to call
2007-12-02 21:10: An E8 theory of everything
2007-09-27 00:46: Parallel universes are a bit more real
2007-07-05 23:40: What happened before the big bang
2007-06-27 00:58: Naïve realism
2007-05-26 02:26: Mars cave


[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic] [PermaLink]? 


Link to this article as: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001711.htm
Main Page: ming.tv