Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1559More living earth and ENSO

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran <mike@usinter.net>
    Dec 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Many of my comments below assume the read has read Richard Lindzen's
      big paper. Lindzen's paper on 'iris' is available at
      http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0
      \ 477&volume= 082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the
      link "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.

      I NEVER say that this paper mentions EMFs. To the contrary--I
      specifically say it does not and SHOULD HAVE and focused on the data
      in this paper. But his instincts are right--just the issue and
      conclusion are wrong.


      Let me make some basic assertions so I can get to my very specific
      ENSO comments:

      1. Lindzen is not trained/educated in EMFs.

      2. Neither are any of the big name climatologists on clouds like
      Hartmann, Fu, Wielicki. (See eg
      http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/resume_txt.html for Hartmann's resume).
      The only exception to this are a handful of sceintists looking at
      gamma rays and glacial ages (See
      http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/31/earth.rays/index.html ,
      http://ae.atmos.uah.edu/AE/ams_2001b.html and
      http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/iaci_workshop ) and they have not had
      much press on what that means to climate systems and the way they
      work.

      3. These same scientists have no substantial biology training.

      4. There are three main ocean currents during La Nina in the tropical
      West Pac.

      5. There is little if any upwelling in the tropical West Pac. during
      La Nina--and hence lack of biological activity for lack of chemistry
      to start the food chain.

      6. Lindzen's DATA showed an inverse relationship between cloud
      wieghted SSTs and cirrus cloud cover.

      7. Cirrus clouds cause an IR warming underneath them. It is
      substantial (see Fu/Hartmann papers).

      8. The Equatorial moves in the direction of west to east and contains
      the warmest waters.

      9. The North and South Equatorials each move from east to west.

      10. Hence, a plausable cause of the inverse relationship is direction
      of current--not SSTs. This answers the question above about whether
      thermodynamics rules or EMFs.

      11. This plausable cause of an inverse relationship is supported by
      the fact in other tropical locations where current directions and
      biological activity is not the same as in the La Nina W. tropical
      Pacific, no iris has been found Bruce A. Wielicki of the NASA Langley
      Research Center believes that the iris images were not representative
      of the entire tropics--his data from a different satellite caused him
      to conclude, in a paper the Journal of Climate, that, on balance,
      warmer tropical clouds would have a slight heating, not a cooling,
      effect. More on that later.

      12. Per Fleming's right hand rule the direction of movement of a
      conducting material, in this case the ocean trade currents of the
      tropical W. Pacific during La Nina, has significance in which
      direction an electrical field would be inducted. Hold your right hand
      out and rotate it for North Equatorial and Equatorial and see how the
      x, y, and z axis moves . . . This varies an EMF term called
      IMPEDANCE. It would have influence on low frequancy large area ion
      movements--waves I call Doran waves. It should be noted that the
      Equatorial current is slightly north of the geographical equator. But
      the earth's magnetic poles are not centered either--which helps to
      explain how dependant the relationship is of wind to EMFs . . .

      13. Ci are enhanced simply because they can contain a charge and that
      charge moves relative to EMF in the ionosphere and in the cloud
      itself below the cirrus formations. With their low mass, Ci will be
      moved or slowed from the forces of gravity by very small, large scale
      forces.

      14. Induction by ocean currents has been observed in peer reviewed
      article: This link is to an abstract about measurable induction by
      ocean currents:


      http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1992/dbs9201.html

      BUT, this is merely what ocean currents are like in the context of
      the earth's EMF and ignores the "noise" of other EMFs. What I am
      saying is that when a strike occurs this itself has an EMF in that
      locality and for that short period, with itself is ORGANIZED in the
      context of the earth's EMF. Hence, direction of current for these
      outliners or noise is going to be more significant because we are
      dealing with larger localized EMFs where ocean currents will become
      more significant as a forcing to create electrical currents in that
      locality. Just by itself, the earth's EMF is fairly small in relation
      to a small scale to a region, so the induction off of it is likewise
      fairly small, even over a large area. But in the context of upper
      atmospheric EMFs then the direction of ocean currents start to matter
      for their inductive properties depending on their direction. THEN,
      this induction sums to be significant the inductance subpart of
      impedence. Hence, when a Doran wave goes through the pulse of ions is
      met with a varying EMF condition--just by direction of ocean current!

      15. EMFs science is hard core supported emperical science. Rules of
      EMF behavior have long been established. The only questions respect
      the circuitry of a living earth.

      16. "Cirrus" are studied in ground level labs by EMF suspension. The
      move readily in EMFs. The mere existance of cirrus increases infra
      red values under them such that more warm, moist air is drawn toward
      them. In this way they feedback more cirrus--such that a forcing
      that increases their survival rate becomes more than it is.


      Now for my ENSO comments:

      Let me frame an obvious problem that has been overlooked in the
      climatology sciences respecting ENSO. If, say, we are in the spring
      of 1998 and SSTs are literally on fire in the equatorial E. Pacific.
      In the W. Pac., there is cold anomalies. Now assuming these two
      conditions--what causes the winds to SHIFT? And shift hard? The
      problem is if you have an answer it must make sense to the purely
      thermodynamic. That will be difficult to do because if climate is
      merely thermodyanic and incidentally having EMFs than cold waters to
      the surface should NOT support convective processes that cause
      thermodyanics that favor warming. Looking at it another way, you have
      a problem with cirrus formation--why don't SSTs drive them in the
      reversal.

      However, EMFs and Gaia provide a plausable answer to the question and
      in my view the probable answer--and my view is well supported
      emperically. Consider that the W. Pac during La Nina conditions gets
      from the South Equatorial the end of a food chain. IOW, the upwelling
      off the coast of Peru that brings the fish there also eventually
      brings a depleted biosphere to the West Pac. But during an El Nino--
      that isn't true. The winds reverse and upwelling occurs in the W.
      Pac. Initially, this causes cold anomalies, of course, but it also
      brings a food chain. Assuming that our models is purely thermodynamic
      but with the added biological input, there may be a plausable
      solution. Darker algaes may uptake solar radiation better than
      lifeless ocean, and increase SSTs thereby. Yet, cloudless areas, even
      with the added heat in the oceans, must account for huge IR values
      that depart out into space.

      Now, if we do include both a biological and an EMF model, the algae
      bloom comes both with added surface albedo but also with surface
      chemistry altered by the upwelling--with ions and other chemistry
      that is more conductive. Surface plants and cells will collect and
      retain this chemistry. Hence, the upwelling can cause a conductive
      change that is significant even if SSTs have not yet reversed in such
      a manner as to make the waters more conductive just based on
      temperature profiles.

      This back and forth of El Nino is a fairly recent occurance. It has
      been the steady 2 to 7 years for about 4-5 thousand years. And during
      this time humans emerged and climate has been extremely stable. The
      modulation of chaotic/random inputs, such as solar insOlation, solar
      EMF/CME, and orbital and other siesmic changes has been very steady.
      During one aspect of ENSO net induction moves against cirrus (La
      Nina) and cools around the world, either by storms or by letting
      raditive energies escape into space, or both, and during the other
      aspect (El Nino) cirrus are net enhanced globally by the induction
      for cirrus. Part of the EMF proof of this is CO2 uptake is varied by
      ENSO--and indicates how battery like changes in the oceans change and
      cause a varied ocean exchange chemistry.

      ENSO, IMHO, has proved to be a very powerful aspect of modulation for
      a living earth. The other aspect, as I have discussed, is more
      related to the near shore hydrology and oceans and EMFs there
      specifically via hydrate activity but also through the same ion and
      condutivity issues of living chemistry washed into the oceans.
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic