.JPG "Earthen Spirituality")
Living within a living, loving planet
Archive for May, 2011
Is the gulf stream slowing down?
May 31st
BBC News
Gulf Stream ‘is not slowing down’
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/8589512.stm
“The Gulf Stream does not appear to be slowing down, say US scientists who have used satellites to monitor tell-tale changes in the height of the sea.”
*****denotes Sky’s comments
****We need to know what scientists and what satellites and how the height of the sea can be used to measure ocean current flow.*****
******Of course, not being an Oceanographer, I cannot understand how a satellite can replace a flow meter for measuring the rate of current flow past a particular point across the Atlantic current.****
****There is a new satellite going up next month that will measure salinity. Salinity is a major player in the conveyor belt action of the Atlantic current. The more fresh water that mixes with the warm, salty surface water moving north, the lower in latitude will be drop which effectively terminates the flow. When the overturn and dropping of the heavier and cooled current occurs lower than the British Isles, then the average temperature will drop several degrees [ 4 to 6c] as is commonly known. If Artic ice and northern glaciers continue to melt, then the warm surface water will inevitably be pushed further south. Since there are absolutely no other known factors at present that can drive temperatures down, then it seems obvious to me that this will happen. It is just a matter of time.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-satellite-will-measur
“Confirming work by other scientists using different methodologies, they found dramatic short-term variability but no longer-term trend.”
***I very much doubt if measurements have been going on long enough to establish a longer-term trend. What is the definition of ‘longer-term? 10 years, 50 years, 100 years? In an article by this correspondent 16 August, 2007 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/6946735.stm] NOC’s Professor Harry Bryden said “But the reality is that anything we measure over 10 years even is going to be labelled interannual variability at the moment.” In 2007, the National Oceanographic Centre in Southhampton reported the following: “Last year the same UK-led team published evidence that the circulation may have weakened by about 30% over half a century. But that was based on historical records from just five sampling expeditions, raising concerns that the data was not robust enough to provide a clear-cut conclusion.” I think somebody got their hands slapped over this reporting because even though the flow meters have been extended and copious data has been collected, no spokesperson has emerged to make it clear, or at least clear to me, whether there is a downward turn of ocean current flow. *****
“The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.”
**** I searched but cannot find anything there. Of course, not having the document title makes it very difficult to find!!***
***There are hundreds of papers published here. Richard Black cites us no references for which we can use to find the paper***
“Between 2002 and 2009, the team says, there was no trend discernible – just a lot of variability on short timescales.”
****Has this satellite been up since 2002 collecting data? If so then this “team” has been very quiet. I wonder if this sudden assurance is due to the findings reported by theoretical physicist, Dr. Gianluigi Zangari, of the prestigious Research Division of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics at Frascati National Laboratories (LNF) of the National Institute of Nuclear Physics [http://www.lnf.infn.it/public/] who claims that the Gulf stream or ‘loop current’ in the Gulf of Mexico has stopped and further suggests this is due to the BP oil spill cutting down the vorticity of the current [vorticity is simply put the ‘flowingness’ of water.] Dr. Zangari claims that satellite photos show evidence of the loop current status. Now, I don’t know how credible Dr. Zangari is or whether he is just a maverick or whether he is being ignored purposely. I can’t even find a reference as to when and where Dr. Zangari published. All I have so far is the word of a person who calls himself Stirling. Stirling claims that Dr. Zangari said the following: “The Gulf Stream importance in the global climate themoregulation processes is well assessed. The latest real time satellite (Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat Follow-On, ERS-2, Envisat) data maps of May-June 2010 processed by CCAR (Dolorado Center for Astrodynamics Research), checked at Frascati Laboratories by the means of the SHT congruent calculus and compared with past years data, show for the first time a direct evidence of the rapid breaking of the Loop Current, a warm ocean current, crucial part of the Gulf Stream” Perhaps I have missed something?
Can anyone help me check this out? ***
Climate change skeptics will love this
May 30th
Some examples of the material the climate change skeptics use to fuel their cause and spread doubt among those who probably don’t want to know.
“Key facts about climate change
- Burning fossil fuels releases gasses such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, creating a ‘greenhouse effect’ and trapping heat.
- Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are at their highest in 150,000 years.
- The last decade has been the warmest decade in history.
- If our greenhouse gas emissions are not brought under control, the speed of climate change over the next hundred years will be faster than anything known since before the dawn of civilization.”
from The Green Providers Directory
http://www.search-for-me.co.uk/climate_change_27.html
Bullet (1)
Burning fossil fuels does not “create” a greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is absolutely essential for the maintenance of life as we know it on the planet. It is naturally occurring and anthropogenic causes only ‘enhance’ or strengthen the effect. Be that as it may, too much of a good thing often, and in this case, turns nasty. So please, let us not claim that humans ‘cause’ the greenhouse effect.
“If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% (or 28%) of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 or −19 °C, about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C. The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Bullet (2)
This statement might appear to be silly to some. Of course, CO2 is higher than it has been for this period. Why? Simply because average global temperature and CO2 concentration in the troposphere follow roughly the same pattern. Their graphs look almost the same. So, naturally, CO2 has not been this high since the last warm cycle of the glacial/interglacial temperature/CO2 cycle which occurred around 120,000 years ago.
Bullet (3) “The last decade has been the warmest decade in history” NO. History goes back a long way. This statement is inaccurate. It would be better to say recent history and even better to say the warmest recorded in the present interglacial period. It is certainly the warmest recorded with thermometers and arguably the warmest as reflected in various ice core samples of the present interglacial period. Regardless who’s readings you cite, 10 years is not appropriate for climate analysis. Also, there are several abrupt temperature change phenomenon that affect short term temperatures. They interact and make short-term temperature predictions difficult. The primary one is the El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. It comes and goes with no predictable period. In other words it is not synchronous thus unpredictable. Another is the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. It is associated with droughts in the US Midwest and Southwest – the “dustbowl” in the 1930’s for instance.
So it is best to remain calm and relatively quiet about global warming when looking out the window and noticing more rain or less rain or when it is colder or hotter. Whatever you see or feel, it has probably occurred before in living memory. Far better to stick with the findings recorded and reported by credible scientists such as James Hansen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Bullet (4) Sweeping statements such as this are dangerous and invite derision. We just don’t know. We have not been here before. Even looking at the ice cores of the last two or three interglacial periods give us only probability. Better stick with what we do know and act on that. CO2 is increasing by 2ppm’s per year. Temperature and CO2 correlate. Humans definitely contribute to carbon content in the air. Sea ice and glaciers are melting. If the tundra thermafrost all melts, tons of methane will enter the troposphere. That’s enough to justify action to lower our contribution.
The Need for Certainty
May 22nd
I think many of us are great seekers of certainty. We press our spiritual and religious leaders for universal truth, always yearning for the definitive answer. Yet all around us we find ourselves immersed in a world where change seems to be everlasting and the only real constant. We expect our scientists to give us certainty, and often they collude with claims that it is only the scientific method that holds the format for certainty. In some scientific research results there appears to be a very solid bulk of certainty, however in quantum physics, the answers seem to just bring up more questions. Unsatisfied and frustrated, we thrust this way and that for answers to life’s mysteries as if not knowing was a huge problem. For all who seek, there will always be a few ready answers and there has never been a shortage of spiritual guides. But we are talking about doubt. Let me form another question and pose an answer if I can. Can we hold both doubt and enough certainty such that we can be comfortable in saying “I have some doubt but I pursue my path discarding the need to be certain”? Can we weigh up certainty and uncertainty and make a decision based on which way the scales tip? I doubt it!
I think we act on the basis of what works for us whilst continually there is awareness of certainty and doubt in a continually changing mixture. One last question: Can we reach the joy in being without certainty or to put it another way, can we reach the joy in being and still have doubts?
Amazon rainforest deforestation rises sharply
May 21st
Brazil: Amazon rainforest deforestation rises sharply
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13449792
“Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest has increased almost sixfold, new data suggests.”
“Last December, a government report said deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon had fallen to its lowest rate for 22 years.”
“Proponents of change say the law impedes economic development and contend that Brazil must open more land for agriculture.”
Trees are the primary trigger mechanism for a reverse trend in global warming. The earth’s orbit and tilt provide the background conditions but are not enough to provide the tipping point on their own. Yes, this is theoretical but the best information we have at the moment and the moment for action is rapidly slipping away. Actually, it may have already passed and we may have missed a whole glacial/interglacial period.
Waiting for certainty is not a solution. Think about it. When the medical doctor suggests a treatment based on his/her judgement, you don’t disregard it because there is no certainty. We are dealing here with Gaia, a living organism. There are so many aspects of living organism behaviour that just don’t fit into the scientific instrumentation parameters. That doesn’t make them invalid.
On another note, isn’t it about time that we get together and consider planetary rights? Does a sovereign nation have the right to destroy that which is shared and that which is vital to the welfare of all lifeforms in the planet? Personally, I don’t honour the rights of another country to poison the air I breathe and the water needed for my body and the food I must consume.
A Living Universe
May 20th
The other day I received a url (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/duane-elgin/living-universe_b_862220.html?ref=email_share) to a posting by Duane Elgin. You may remember him from his wonderful book in the 1980s – Voluntary Simplicity.
I especially liked the posting because it highlights the idea that we live in a living universe. He gives four examples where science has discovered evidence of how it sustains itself which is obviously an attribute of living systems. Further, he cites several spiritual masters from the wisdom faiths who speak of a living universe.
My attitude is that the universe is just too big and the energy too potent for me to get my mind or soul around it. I prefer to look at Gaia, mother Earth, and feel that Gaia mediates the energy of the universe in ways that we can feel, touch and find sustaining both physically and psychically. So, yes indeed, the universe is alive, but the living earth is where we must start in order to access sustaining energy and well being.
Another very well written paragraph – clear and concise – is about materialism. I like the following: “Materialism is a rational response to living in a dead universe.” and “Consumerism and exploitation are natural outcomes of a dead universe perspective.”
Along with Duane, I suggest that materialism does not keep its promise. Having “things” usually result in boredom and then the desire for more things or replacement that are bigger, more powerful and red instead of the tired old blue ones. Then, in short time, these no longer satisfy. The church of consumerism with the god materialism leaves us with the same fate as Ozymandias or Ramesses the Great, the Egyptian Pharaoh. On the base of his statue is: “King of Kings am I, Osymandias. If anyone would know how great I am and where I lie, let him surpass one of my works.”
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away”.
Percy Bysshe Shelley
Duane says it far better than I here:
“If we regard the universe as dead at its foundations, then feelings of existential alienation, anxiety, dread, and fear are understandable. Why seek communion with the cold indifference of lifeless matter and empty space? If we relax, we will simply sink into existential despair. However in a living universe feelings of subtle connection, curiosity, and gratitude are understandable. We see ourselves as participants in a cosmic garden of life that has been patiently developing over billions of years. A living universe perspective invites us to shift from indifference, fear, and cynicism to curiosity, love, and awe.”
Thank you Duane for this great posting.
So if Gaia is truly alive and we are in and around and integral parts, then who dies?
Gaia’s Energy
May 15th
An early clear blue sky was rapidly gathering clouds Sunday as I finished breakfast and the sweet memory of the opening to Darrol Barry’s Lullaby for Lisa crept quietly into my thinking space. Ah yes, those four simple but hauntingly beautiful first four bars that I share with the horns almost brings me undone. They would be a prayer if I was a praying person. How can the simplicity of a quaver and a dotted minim of the same note moving up and then down the scale within four bars invoke such pleasant feelings? Let us ponder this. Traditionally some would call it an aesthetic sense. However, this leaves me cold and unsatisfied. I tried once to glean the essence of the area of philosophy called Aesthetics and got absolutely nowhere. I’ll take the blame but I need to better understand not only what happens to my body/mind during these experiences but how they tie in with being an Earthling – from the perspective of being within the folds so to speak of Gaia. Perhaps this is just Gaia’s energy, the energy that is always available and permeates through and all around us. Perhaps what we call special isn’t really special at all but just what we may have opened to at that particular time. I’m reminded of those who say that no one thing is more sacred than any other. If one thing is sacred than all of “it” is sacred. Surely separating the sacred from the mundane is a mindset that has shown its limiting colours and needs rethinking or re-feeling into. Surely our body/mind is always tuned to Gaia’s energy or perhaps I must say that since we are Gaia’s energy we might benefit from becoming more aware and sensitive to that part of ourselves. Any thoughts along these lines? Please share them.
Wisty 10 years old
Introductory Post
May 14th
Gaia Consciousness
This is my first posting on this new blog. I hope to stimulate discussion as to what we can and what we cannot say about spirit, Earthen Spirituality and Gaia consciousness. By Gaia consciousness I mean the idea or realization that there is only one consciousness available to us as an Earthling and it is Gaia. So I suggest that our assumption that we are a separate conscious being looking out onto a separate world is an illusion. We are more ‘being lived’ than living. Now let me make it clear at the outset. Yes, we all, all creatures to an extent, have a thinking function. But, we are not our thinking function. Thinking is a tool, a wonderful tool. However, we seem to be content to eat the icing off the cake and ignore the cake. Why does that ancient text, the Hsin Hsin Ming, by the Third Chan patriarch say: “Stop thinking and there is nothing that you will not be able to understand?” Why because our thinking function is limited and is not at all in touch with our deeper reality, our deeper connection with Gaia and the creative spirit that forms the basis of life as we can experience it. The Psalms say – “Be still and know that I am God.” The word still is probably not a very accurate translation. But turning it around the other way, one can perhaps agree that we don’t engage in endless debate over the nature of God. The thinking function is totally inadequate. However, intuition is a subject for further enquiry at another time.
Please post your ideas.
Choosing accurate and meaningful words for what I am getting at is difficult because our acceptable language terminology has been determined largely by our world view. As we feel deeply into what it is to be alive; what it is to be an Earthling and learn more and more about the intelligence and wisdom of Gaia, we discover how utterly limiting our vocabulary is. What a barrier it is to thinking out of the box so to speak. Traditional science has been very little help by defining truth as that which fits into their measuring instruments and worshipping certainty as it emerges from their measurements. If phenomenon does not fit the instruments, then it is worthless and any thoughts on the subject lack certainty. I have a lot more to say about certainty. Moving on however, Let me suggest a question, a discussion item perhaps.
How would our worldview change if we saw ourselves as actually IN the planet, integrated like the roots and the trunk of a tree? An ancillary question. Is it not probable that a planet such as Gaia, has great spiritual power? The kind of power that fuels the immense diversity and creativity, not to mention the sometimes awesome, breathtaking beauty that some of us have experienced. What is the whole philosophical subject called aesthetics but simply Gaia’s loving energy?
Unfortunately, our vocabulary is limited to the accepted scientific and philosophical terminology largely determined even before the world was proven not to be square and that the sun did not circle the Earth. Don’t we still speak of sunrise and sunset? I don’t have a problem with that but does it not illustrate how we tend to hold on to outdated terminology and ways of thinking?
I have a lot more to say about how our ways of seeing the world limit our ability to learn deeper meanings and relationships.
Please post your ideas, I would really like to hear them.
I find it difficult to keep myself constantly aware that Gaia has wisdom, intelligence and a huge spiritual envelope. My concern is that we continue our destruction of other lifeforms because we don’t love the Earth. We don’t love the Earth because we have not been taught that the Earth is lovable. How much of the loveliness we feel outdoors comes to us through Gaia as a Mother being?
Spirituality and certainty, now there is a provoking subject. I recently discussed global warming with a chap at a private art and sculpture showing. The word certainty came up. Where was the certainty when it comes to global warming. I didn’t have time to develop my thoughts on this. However, when we consider that Gaia is a living being, then we should recognise that living beings simply do not conform to mathematical certainty. Consider: When your medical doctor says that he/she does not know exactly what is wrong with you but puts you on a course of medicine, do you ignore it out of hand because the diagnosis lacks certainty? When scores of research projects link smoking to cancer do you totally deny the probability because the math has no absolute certainty? Will you certainly awaken tomorrow morning? Smog in Tucson Arizona is a certainty. It wasn’t there just after World War II. Are you going to tell me that humans did not cause it? Phoenix Arizona was the place where asthmatics, hay fever sufferers and people with breathing problems were told to move to in the period before 50 years or so ago. Not now. No, for humans by the thousands sunk wells into the precious acquifer and sprinkled blue grass while farmers ploughed and watered the desert. That was called making the desert “bloom.”
Is it certain that humans caused these changes? I think so, don’t you?
Again, concern for the human interference with the manner in which Gaia maintains our health – her health is our health – is earthen Spirituality practice. One last question with this post: Can we damage the planet without damaging ourselves?
Randazzo, Sicily 2011