The only thing going green is the Arctic.

[kairos]

At this rate it'll have to be renamed the great green north...

http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/researchers-climate-change-is-turning-earths-northern-latitudes-green/

[Guest Derek L]

Cool (pun intended)...........Maybe we might see the return of camels to the lush arctic forests of the past:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/giant-camels-roamed-arctic-realm.html?rss=1

The long-lost cousins of today's camels once roamed the high Arctic, browsing open forests in regions that are near-barren landscapes today. That's the conclusion from an analysis of the fragmentary remains of an ancient leg bone unearthed on Canada's Ellesmere Island, which lies just west of northern Greenland. The find also adds to the tantalizing clues about how these moose-sized, presumably shaggy progenitors fit into the camel family tree—a lineage that today boasts only two species of true camels but includes plenty of South American relatives such as llamas, alpacas, guanacos, and vicuñas.

What's old is new again?

[shortlived]

Or maybe even the great green south or great green east or great green west.

At this rate it'll have to be renamed the great green north...

green captures more heat than white.

Edited March 11, 2013 by shortlived

[kairos]

How much hot air do anti-environment conservatives collect?

[Guest Derek L]

Hmmm…….and I thought forests were a good thing……….If said arctic forest came to fruition, would there not be anyone hugging the trees?

What’s waterfront real-estate prices like up North?

Edited March 11, 2013 by Derek L

[shortlived]

Hmmm…….and I thought forests were a good thing……….If said arctic forest came to fruition, would there not be anyone hugging the trees?

What’s waterfront real-estate prices like up North?

forests are good for carbon sequestration (but so is peat) which the north is doing a lot, they are not good for forest fires, which will effect a larger area than the arctic like the area of "central" Canada covered by boreal forests.

They arn't good for cooling things down though, but they will help to capture carbon, planting trees can go a long way but they need to be planted in a way that minimizes fire risk. (do note though that the arctic is traditionally very arid)

It will continue to hit the local species hard.

arctic fox, caribou, polar bear, etc...

http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/endangered-species/species-most-endangered-by-global-warming/4256

The impact is the the TEK will be jepordized, as northern areas will need to switch over to agriculture, more, as animal food stocks of the north become jepordized. Waiting until they are gone is too late. There should be reindeer farms and hydroponic operations opened up in the near future rather than waiting 10 years from now.

Edited March 11, 2013 by shortlived

[kairos]

Anti-Environmental Canadians never cease to amaze. If the arctic gets green that doesn't help increase c02 absorption, because the world's deserts will logically increase to an utterly massive area. (See the camel).

[Guest Derek L]

So we could see the return of the arctic camel?

[shortlived]

So we could see the return of the arctic camel?

they are doing up the mammoth in japan

but I think this callogen cloning may provide for replication of camel bones, I don't know enough about cloning to tell you if so dinosaurs can also be cloned.

Now we were to find a frozen giant camel frozen with biological cells still live then yes for sure.

tell me what you can get from this

http://endo.endojournals.org/content/142/3/1341.full.pdf

The missing element is an "incubator"

Putting a giant camel into a normal camel might be a little mean.

it would probably need to be a really large female camel to incubate.

Notice how there was no arab joke about growing bones in camels...

The cloning project would probably pay for itself if cloning from bone callogen were possible.... ^^^

Edited March 11, 2013 by shortlived

[waldo]

Hmmm…….and I thought forests were a good thing……….If said arctic forest came to fruition, would there not be anyone hugging the trees?

What’s waterfront real-estate prices like up North?

curt answers and trivialization... surprise, surprise!

of course, accepting to the greenhouse effect driver, you could look a bit closer at the study and ponder about the significant greening rate difference between the Arctic regions accelerating greening as compared to the boreal regions decelerating greening, in spite of both regions being subject to similar rates of increase in warmer/extended growing seasons. What might cause that greening rate difference between the Arctic and boreal regions... other than, say, for example... the boreal region being subject to more frequent forest fires, an increase in pest infestations, an increase in summertime droughts, less water availability, etc...

of course, that driving greenhouse effect is amplified as more and more ice and snow cover melts... a positive feedback that itself is even more drastically amplified when the melting of permafrost extends below the top active layer supporting vegetation and previously trapped CO2/methane begins to be released into the atmosphere.

you'll need a real sharp real-estate agent, hey! Choose wisely.

[scribblet]

Maybe the Arctic will become the breadbasket of the world. Heck, longer growing seasons, more food, more trees.. cool

[g_bambino]

Maybe the Arctic will become the breadbasket of the world. Heck, longer growing seasons, more food, more trees.. cool

Except what's arable land now will likely not be if we reach a point such as the one you're talking about.

[ed.: sp]

Edited March 11, 2013 by g_bambino

[waldo]

Maybe the Arctic will become the breadbasket of the world. Heck, longer growing seasons, more food, more trees.. cool

see Arctic tundra... see subsoil permafrost... see melting depth increasing with increased warming... see trapped CO2/methane release... see amplified feedback warming... see more & more trapped CO2/methane release... see increased greenhouse effect... rinse, repeat, recycle!

perhaps you should temper your flippant zeal for a new-found grain source... perhaps start with the boreal forests before you engage the Arctic! Oh wait, as I alluded to in my earlier post, the referenced study speaks to greenhouse effect induced causal ties to the sobering evidence of increased boreal forest tree mortality... of boreal regions decelerating greening. And, uhhh... you do know there are also significant areas of permafrost within the boreal forest, right?

Edited March 11, 2013 by waldo

[Guest Derek L]

curt answers and trivialization... surprise, surprise!

of course, accepting to the greenhouse effect driver, you could look a bit closer at the study and ponder about the significant greening rate difference between the Arctic regions accelerating greening as compared to the boreal regions decelerating greening, in spite of both regions being subject to similar rates of increase in warmer/extended growing seasons. What might cause that greening rate difference between the Arctic and boreal regions... other than, say, for example... the boreal region being subject to more frequent forest fires, an increase in pest infestations, an increase in summertime droughts, less water availability, etc...

of course, that driving greenhouse effect is amplified as more and more ice and snow cover melts... a positive feedback that itself is even more drastically amplified when the melting of permafrost extends below the top active layer supporting vegetation and previously trapped CO2/methane begins to be released into the atmosphere.

you'll need a real sharp real-estate agent, hey! Choose wisely.

So avoid future swampland? Got it

[Keepitsimple]

I've mentioned it before but I think it's generally accepted that - as warm as it might currently be, average global temoperatures have remained virtually unchanged since 2000 - this in spite of the huge swath of Arctic territory that has clearly undergone significant warming. The Arctic represents a fairly significant percentage of the Earth's "landmass". It therefore seems evident that if the Arctic were excluded from the average Global teperature calculation, the rest of the planet must be - on average - cooling. Is it possible that all we have is the natural progression of Climate Change, helped along by a small bit by human contribution? Is it possible that what we really have is an Arctic Anomole - and not Catastrophic Global Warming?

[waldo]

So avoid future swampland? Got it

yup - to keep your militia's guns/ammo dry... to keep your referenced tree-huggers in check!

[shortlived]

Hmmm…….and I thought forests were a good thing……….If said arctic forest came to fruition, would there not be anyone hugging the trees?

What’s waterfront real-estate prices like up North?

Not as cheap as it was 4 years ago but still 1/4 to 1/8th the cost of the south or more. Just expect to be using greenhouses if you want to grow your own food in quantities and variety. Of course hunting and fishing and natural harvesting can carry you for.

Remember though ocean levels are suppose to rise by a meter or so over the next 50 years. so don't buy too close.

If you can do a high altitutde island do it, easier to manage fire risk.

My advice is 8 to 78 meters above sea level.

Edited March 11, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest Derek L]

yup - to keep your militia's guns/ammo dry... to keep your referenced tree-huggers in check!

Tell me about the (arctic) rabbits George Waldo

[waldo]

I've mentioned it before but I think it's generally accepted that - as warm as it might currently be, average global temoperatures have remained virtually unchanged since 2000 - this in spite of the huge swath of Arctic territory that has clearly undergone significant warming. The Arctic represents a fairly significant percentage of the Earth's "landmass". It therefore seems evident that if the Arctic were excluded from the average Global teperature calculation, the rest of the planet must be - on average - cooling. Is it possible that all we have is the natural progression of Climate Change, helped along by a small bit by human contribution? Is it possible that what we really have is an Arctic Anomole - and not Catastrophic Global Warming?

oh my! Speaking of (your) rinse, repeat and recycle... and the last time you tried fronting this "Northern latitude/Arctic warming anomaly". And even in your wildest imagination/denial, even if it were true (which it isn't), it's always reassuring to see you continue to latch onto your 'global cooling' meme. Ya, ya... if only you get rid of that annoying warming, to allow your global cooling meme to thrive and prosper!!!

again... a reminder of the last time you fronted this - enjoy!

It's quite interesting what's been happening the last 10 or 15 years. When you stand back and filter out the noise, it appears that we have a somewhat substantial warming anomole in the Northern latitudes - mostly the Arctic. When you look at almost the entire rest of the world - the US, Asia, Europe - as alluded to in the initial post of this thread - all you see is harsh winters and lots of snow.

the first thing you should do is acquaint yourself with the latitudes of the "U.S., Europe and the more prominent Asian countries"... just check the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer... always an easy reference, hey? Then have a look at this temperature to latitude grouping image presentation. You do realize where the U.S., Europe and most of Asia fit in that grouping, right?

yes, warming is more prominent in Northern latitudes; however, warming is most certainly occurring in mid/southern latitudes. What could the reasons be for differences in the degree of warming across the respective latitudinal groupings, hey Simple?

If you consider that the average global temperature has remained virtually unchanged over the past 15 years

no, it most certainly has not - you are incorrect and purposely choosing to misinform

Not ended... not slowed... and not natural

5 major global temperature data sets - annual averages with natural influences removed;

- and you subtract out the Arctic anomole, a very strong argument can be made that the Globe is actually cooling.

well... you've tried to make that cooling argument many times in the past, right Simple? How did that work out for you? Would you like me to reacquaint you with your failed attempts? But really, such is the fake skeptic way... "if we get rid of this warming over here, then we can argue it's actually cooling"!

As opposed to looking at the Globe as a whole, it would be nice to have a clearer explanation for the Arctic anomole. In fact, I'm sure most of the answers are there - but it's an inconvenient truth to put them in the context that I have laid out.

is there anything preventing you from speaking to explanations on greater norther latitudes & Arctic warming? To ferreting out what you call an, "inconvenient truth"? I mean, c'mon Simple... surely fake skeptics must have some supporting rationale to delineate the additional northern latitudes & Arctic warming? Surely!

ok, ok... let's see: how about the greater proportion of land to water surface in the northern hemisphere... with oceans responding much slower to temperature change. Or how about, polar amplification, where changes in cloud cover, increases in atmospheric water vapour, and declining sea ice have all been suggested as contributing factors:

e.g. The central role of diminishing sea ice in recent Arctic temperature amplification - Nature: James A. Screen & Ian Simmonds

The rise in Arctic near-surface air temperatures has been almost twice as large as the global average in recent decades — a feature known as ‘Arctic amplification’. Increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases have driven Arctic and global average warming; however, the underlying causes of Arctic amplification remain uncertain. The roles of reductions in snow and sea ice cover and changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation, cloud cover and water vapour are still matters of debate. A better understanding of the processes responsible for the recent amplified warming is essential for assessing the likelihood, and impacts, of future rapid Arctic warming and sea ice loss. Here we show that the Arctic warming is strongest at the surface during most of the year and is primarily consistent with reductions in sea ice cover. Changes in cloud cover, in contrast, have not contributed strongly to recent warming. Increases in atmospheric water vapour content, partly in response to reduced sea ice cover, may have enhanced warming in the lower part of the atmosphere during summer and early autumn. We conclude that diminishing sea ice has had a leading role in recent Arctic temperature amplification. The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice–temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice-sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic.

[waldo]

Tell me about the (arctic) rabbits George Waldo

is there a translator in the house?... anyone, anyone... Bueller?

[Guest Derek L]

is there a translator in the house?... anyone, anyone... Bueller?

Try John Steinbeck

[waldo]

Try John Steinbeck

stop!

[eyeball]

Is it possible that what we really have is an Arctic Anomole - and not Catastrophic Global Warming?

It's possible but unlikely according to the vast majority of scientists around the world.

I've mentioned it before but I think it's generally accepted that - as warm as it might currently be, average global temoperatures have remained virtually unchanged since 2000 - this in spite of the huge swath of Arctic territory that has clearly undergone significant warming.

It's like an ice cube dropped into a pot of water heating on a stove, it'll slow the warming for a while but once it melts the heating speeds up again.

Edited March 11, 2013 by eyeball

[Peanutbutter]

At this rate it'll have to be renamed the great green north...

http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/researchers-climate-change-is-turning-earths-northern-latitudes-green/

That's great news, so you're saying that soon we'll have another area to build cottages and to spread out our population. Sounds great to me.

[g_bambino]

That's great news, so you're saying that soon we'll have another area to build cottages and to spread out our population. Sounds great to me.

No, just the population displaced from elsewhere.