From what I can gather from the Science page of the New York Times;
and article on it suggests that permafrost might be capable of
surviving global warming.

I can't really follow the argument as it seems a little disjointed:


"....a study published in Science suggests that the impact of warming
on the permafrost may not be as bad as forecast. The evidence comes in
the form of a wedge of ancient ice found at an old mining site in the
Yukon in Canada.

Ice wedges form in permafrost when the ground cracks because of cold,
and spring melt-water seeps in and freezes. Over hundreds of years,
the wedge builds up, like an in-ground icicle.

Duane G. Froese of the University of Alberta, the lead author of the
study, said ice wedges could provide clues to the long-term stability
of the permafrost. The problem is figuring out how old they are.

In this case, the top of the wedge was a couple of yards deep in the
permafrost, and the researchers found volcanic ash on its top surface.
By dating the ash (which presumably came from eruptions in what is now
south-eastern Alaska) Dr. Froese and his colleagues were able to say
how long the ice has been the about 740,000 years. Because the ash
had to have been deposited after the wedge formed, that’s “very clear
proof,” Dr. Froese said, that the ice is at least that old.

That means the ice survived through several warming periods, including
the last major one, 120,000 years ago. “The general view is that
everything would have melted out back then,” Dr. Froese said. The new
finding suggests that wasn’t the case, and that models of future
melting need to be rethought.

“But I don’t want people to think we don’t have to worry about global
climate change,” Dr. Froese said. The top couple of yards of
permafrost are still likely to melt as temperatures warm, and there’s
plenty of carbon stored in them. “But the deeper part of the
permafrost is probably relatively stable,” he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/sc...23obsperm.html

First of all the ash should have been traced to its origins.
Presumably from "somewhere" in "south eastern Alaska" sounds a little
woolly.

But what does this mean: "By dating the ash"?

How would they date the ash? Radio activity?

Presumably the ash came from a volcano. So which parts of the volcano?
And how rich in radio activity would the / those parts have been?

Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly well aware of the academic
difficulties involved in categorising such stuff. And I certainly
don't wish to get involved in the arguments of gullible sheep.

I just want journalism to be a lot less jingoistic in its revelations.

On Sep 19, 12:55*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
From what I can gather from the Science page of the New York Times;
and article on it suggests that permafrost might be capable of
surviving global warming.

I can't really follow the argument as it seems a little disjointed:

"....a study published in Science suggests that the impact of warming
on the permafrost may not be as bad as forecast. The evidence comes in
the form of a wedge of ancient ice found at an old mining site in the
Yukon in Canada.

Ice wedges form in permafrost when the ground cracks because of cold,
and spring melt-water seeps in and freezes. Over hundreds of years,
the wedge builds up, like an in-ground icicle.

Duane G. Froese of the University of Alberta, the lead author of the
study, said ice wedges could provide clues to the long-term stability
of the permafrost. The problem is figuring out how old they are.

In this case, the top of the wedge was a couple of yards deep in the
permafrost, and the researchers found volcanic ash on its top surface.
By dating the ash (which presumably came from eruptions in what is now
south-eastern Alaska) Dr. Froese and his colleagues were able to say
how long the ice has been the about 740,000 years. Because the ash
had to have been deposited after the wedge formed, that’s “very clear
proof,” Dr. Froese said, that the ice is at least that old.

That means the ice survived through several warming periods, including
the last major one, 120,000 years ago. “The general view is that
everything would have melted out back then,” Dr. Froese said. The new
finding suggests that wasn’t the case, and that models of future
melting need to be rethought.

“But I don’t want people to think we don’t have to worry about global
climate change,” Dr. Froese said. The top couple of yards of
permafrost are still likely to melt as temperatures warm, and there’s
plenty of carbon stored in them. “But the deeper part of the
permafrost is probably relatively stable,” he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/sc...23obsperm.html

First of all the ash should have been traced to its origins.
Presumably from "somewhere" in "south eastern Alaska" sounds a little
woolly.

But what does this mean: "By dating the ash"?

How would they date the ash? Radio activity?

Presumably the ash came from a volcano. So which parts of the volcano?
And how rich in radio activity would the / those parts have been?

Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly well aware of the academic
difficulties involved in categorising such stuff. And I certainly
don't wish to get involved in the arguments of gullible sheep.

I just want journalism to be a lot less jingoistic in its revelations.

I don't know nothing from nothin about this sort of stuff but when I
look at images of this sort of thing:
http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20080915a

I see Lunar craters and I think:
"Meteor impact? Ayeyerright!"

The I try to understand what the devil the expert can see that I
should be looking at instead and think:

"HTF do they always manage to be direct hits?"

Big deal, they discovered ice on Mars. It'd be difficult to explain
the weather and assorted features of that nature on the place without
it.

Same goes for the moon. Those are not meteor strikes.

Makes you wonder how much compression is going on inside our own
planet.

There's a feature in space seen all over the place
A signature god is in heaven
When we get there we'll know it's how he makes things grow
By a word we can get what we came for

Ooh, a stairway to heaven

It's a sign on the wall, it says we will not fall
But sometimes his words have two meanings

Should we stay here on earth in the place of our birth
Accepting all that we are given?

Oh-oh, makes me wonder. I wonder; I really wonder

There's a feeling I get: Stay at home where it's best
Then my spirit is thinking of leaving
And the thoughts come to me of the places to be
In the dark, starry sky, cold, unmoving

Ooh. They whisper: On.

Soon. Like we got to the moon
So near and so far for a reason
And a new day will dawn for those who still long
And the vapour will echo our trail there.

Oh, and it makes me wonder
Mm, hmm! I long to wander

On Sep 20, 7:17*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:55*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:



From what I can gather from the Science page of the New York Times;
and article on it suggests that permafrost might be capable of
surviving global warming.

I can't really follow the argument as it seems a little disjointed:

"....a study published in Science suggests that the impact of warming
on the permafrost may not be as bad as forecast. The evidence comes in
the form of a wedge of ancient ice found at an old mining site in the
Yukon in Canada.

Ice wedges form in permafrost when the ground cracks because of cold,
and spring melt-water seeps in and freezes. Over hundreds of years,
the wedge builds up, like an in-ground icicle.

Duane G. Froese of the University of Alberta, the lead author of the
study, said ice wedges could provide clues to the long-term stability
of the permafrost. The problem is figuring out how old they are.

In this case, the top of the wedge was a couple of yards deep in the
permafrost, and the researchers found volcanic ash on its top surface.
By dating the ash (which presumably came from eruptions in what is now
south-eastern Alaska) Dr. Froese and his colleagues were able to say
how long the ice has been the about 740,000 years. Because the ash
had to have been deposited after the wedge formed, that’s “very clear
proof,” Dr. Froese said, that the ice is at least that old.

That means the ice survived through several warming periods, including
the last major one, 120,000 years ago. “The general view is that
everything would have melted out back then,” Dr. Froese said. The new
finding suggests that wasn’t the case, and that models of future
melting need to be rethought.

“But I don’t want people to think we don’t have to worry about global
climate change,” Dr. Froese said. The top couple of yards of
permafrost are still likely to melt as temperatures warm, and there’s
plenty of carbon stored in them. “But the deeper part of the
permafrost is probably relatively stable,” he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/sc...23obsperm.html

First of all the ash should have been traced to its origins.
Presumably from "somewhere" in "south eastern Alaska" sounds a little
woolly.

But what does this mean: "By dating the ash"?

How would they date the ash? Radio activity?

Presumably the ash came from a volcano. So which parts of the volcano?
And how rich in radio activity would the / those parts have been?

Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly well aware of the academic
difficulties involved in categorising such stuff. And I certainly
don't wish to get involved in the arguments of gullible sheep.

I just want journalism to be a lot less jingoistic in its revelations.

I don't know nothing from nothin about this sort of stuff but when I
look at images of this sort of thing: http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20080915a

I see Lunar craters and I think:
"Meteor impact? Ayeyerright!"

The I try to understand what the devil the expert can see that I
should be looking at instead and think:

"HTF do they always manage to be direct hits?"

Big deal, they discovered ice on Mars. It'd be difficult to explain
the weather and assorted features of that nature on the place without
it.

Same goes for the moon. Those are not meteor strikes.

Makes you wonder how much compression is going on inside our own
planet.

There's a feature in space seen all over the place
A signature god is in heaven
When we get there we'll know it's how he makes things grow
By a word we can get what we came for

Ooh, a stairway to heaven

It's a sign on the wall, it says we will not fall
But sometimes his words have two meanings

Should we stay here on earth in the place of our birth
Accepting all that we are given?

Oh-oh, makes me wonder. I wonder; I really wonder

There's a feeling I get: Stay at home where it's best
Then my spirit is thinking of leaving
And the thoughts come to me of the places to be
In the dark, starry sky, cold, unmoving

Ooh. They whisper: On.

Soon. Like we got to the moon
So near and so far for a reason
And a new day will dawn for those who still long
And the vapour will echo our trail there.

Oh, and it makes me wonder
Mm, hmm! I long to wander

You know, thinking about the ballistics of an impact. Out of a choice
of possible directions of 360 degrees and with a limited angle of
approach varying from 1 to 179 degrees, the chances of the impact
being perpendicular are 1 in 180 x 360.

That is 1:64,800.
That's on a flat surface -but of course, the target is spheroid.

On the other hand, the chances of pingoes (or whatever) not being the
shape of those craters is anything from two to one on to one in a
million.

Look at the symmetries in this one:
http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20080911a

Not only was it not spinning but it wasn't producing debris from
itself or its target.
How come?

And see the symmetry of the surroundings? Even the other pock marks
look as if they have had a stab at matching side for side.

On Sep 20, 8:37*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:17*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:



On Sep 19, 12:55*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

From what I can gather from the Science page of the New York Times;
and article on it suggests that permafrost might be capable of
surviving global warming.

I can't really follow the argument as it seems a little disjointed:

"....a study published in Science suggests that the impact of warming
on the permafrost may not be as bad as forecast. The evidence comes in
the form of a wedge of ancient ice found at an old mining site in the
Yukon in Canada.

Ice wedges form in permafrost when the ground cracks because of cold,
and spring melt-water seeps in and freezes. Over hundreds of years,
the wedge builds up, like an in-ground icicle.

Duane G. Froese of the University of Alberta, the lead author of the
study, said ice wedges could provide clues to the long-term stability
of the permafrost. The problem is figuring out how old they are.

In this case, the top of the wedge was a couple of yards deep in the
permafrost, and the researchers found volcanic ash on its top surface..
By dating the ash (which presumably came from eruptions in what is now
south-eastern Alaska) Dr. Froese and his colleagues were able to say
how long the ice has been the about 740,000 years. Because the ash
had to have been deposited after the wedge formed, that’s “very clear
proof,” Dr. Froese said, that the ice is at least that old.

That means the ice survived through several warming periods, including
the last major one, 120,000 years ago. “The general view is that
everything would have melted out back then,” Dr. Froese said. The new
finding suggests that wasn’t the case, and that models of future
melting need to be rethought.

“But I don’t want people to think we don’t have to worry about global
climate change,” Dr. Froese said. The top couple of yards of
permafrost are still likely to melt as temperatures warm, and there’s
plenty of carbon stored in them. “But the deeper part of the
permafrost is probably relatively stable,” he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/sc...23obsperm.html

First of all the ash should have been traced to its origins.
Presumably from "somewhere" in "south eastern Alaska" sounds a little
woolly.

But what does this mean: "By dating the ash"?

How would they date the ash? Radio activity?

Presumably the ash came from a volcano. So which parts of the volcano?
And how rich in radio activity would the / those parts have been?

Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly well aware of the academic
difficulties involved in categorising such stuff. And I certainly
don't wish to get involved in the arguments of gullible sheep.

I just want journalism to be a lot less jingoistic in its revelations..

I don't know nothing from nothin about this sort of stuff but when I
look at images of this sort of thing: http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20080915a

I see Lunar craters and I think:
"Meteor impact? Ayeyerright!"

The I try to understand what the devil the expert can see that I
should be looking at instead and think:

"HTF do they always manage to be direct hits?"

Big deal, they discovered ice on Mars. It'd be difficult to explain
the weather and assorted features of that nature on the place without
it.

Same goes for the moon. Those are not meteor strikes.

Makes you wonder how much compression is going on inside our own
planet.

There's a feature in space seen all over the place
A signature god is in heaven
When we get there we'll know it's how he makes things grow
By a word we can get what we came for

Ooh, a stairway to heaven

It's a sign on the wall, it says we will not fall
But sometimes his words have two meanings

Should we stay here on earth in the place of our birth
Accepting all that we are given?

Oh-oh, makes me wonder. I wonder; I really wonder

There's a feeling I get: Stay at home where it's best
Then my spirit is thinking of leaving
And the thoughts come to me of the places to be
In the dark, starry sky, cold, unmoving

Ooh. They whisper: On.

Soon. Like we got to the moon
So near and so far for a reason
And a new day will dawn for those who still long
And the vapour will echo our trail there.

Oh, and it makes me wonder
Mm, hmm! I long to wander

You know, thinking about the ballistics of an impact. Out of a choice
of possible directions of 360 degrees and with a limited angle of
approach varying from 1 to 179 degrees, the chances of the impact
being perpendicular are 1 in 180 x 360.

That is 1:64,800.
That's on a flat surface -but of course, the target is spheroid.

On the other hand, the chances of pingoes (or whatever) not being the
shape of those craters is anything from two to one on to one in a
million.

Look at the symmetries in this one: http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20080911a

Not only was it not spinning but it wasn't producing debris from
itself or its target.
How come?

And see the symmetry of the surroundings? Even the other pock marks
look as if they have had a stab at matching side for side.

Including the Bering Sea to the coast of Russia and swapping the
Brooks mountains for a chunk of the Yukon; Alaska is as big as the
Rockies. And for the best trick: God made them virtually the same
shape.

From the Wikipedia:

"Resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at maximum
amplitude at certain frequencies, known as the system's resonance
frequencies.

At these frequencies, even small periodic driving forces can produce
large amplitude vibrations, because the system stores vibrational
energy.

When damping is small, the resonance frequency is approximately equal
to the natural frequency of the system, which is the frequency of free
vibrations.

Resonant phenomena occur with all type of vibrations or waves:

Mechanical resonance, acoustic resonance, electromagnetic resonance
and resonance of quantum wave functions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance

Looking at the obvious relationship between weather and earthquakes
spanning the North American continents, I was struck by the
relationship it has with the law of thirds.

To the west: 1/3 mountains, in the middle: 1/3 plains, in the east:1/3
a mixed bag; whose resonances are no doubt just as easily divided into
yet more resonances.

Take the Great Lakes for example; they seem particularly suited to
divining resonances.

Note how remarkably similar the western coast of Lake Michigan is to
the NW coast of Lake Superior. In fact, had the eastern coast of Lake
Michigan extended along the Muskegon River to Sheboygan, they'd be
identical.

OK, if they weren't different, everything would be the same but that
curve involved is the obverse of what actually occurs, to a very close
approximation.

(On a flat map at least. I haven't tried it on a globe.)

I can't quite get the same results out of Lake Huron, except...
If I take it apart I can make the pieces fit except for that same
section of the eastern third of Lake Superior.

But you get the idea?

Something about sound:

"The frequency is the speed of sound divided by this wavelength, and
that gives the harmonic series f1, 2f1, 3f1 etc. (This is a slight
simplification: the pressure node is a little distance outside the
pipe..."

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/woodwind.html#harmonic

There was something about the fact that the note appears just outside
the instrument that struck a chord with me (so to speak.)

There was something about amplitude or loudness or something on that
page too. All grist to Weatherlawyer's mill. (Helmholtz resonators
notwithstanding.)