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

2511Jim--your question

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    Aug 18 10:03 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim,

      I didn't mean to avoid your question. It's just that it is a very
      difficult one:


      Here is a blog which one of the top posts features a bet regarding
      the sun causing temperatures to fall:

      http://timlambert.org/2005/07/climate-audiot/#comments

      These fake skeptics continue to ignore what ELECTRICAL and BIOLOGICAL
      orders are brought to the climate system. Note that in this
      discussion there is not ONE WORD about electrical or biological order
      to the climate system. NOTHING.

      Anyway, to this idea of an event horizon. Obviously, when a study
      shows that tropical storm intensity and frequency has increased, that
      is a sign of low entropy. Really low entropy. Or put another way a
      lot of order. That order tends to go to disorder. Warm goes to
      cold. Clouds in a circle or line fuzz out to no pressure differences
      in no patterns. That is the way of the closed system, which, of
      course, is not closed. The problem is that the orders imposed on
      cloud microphysics differ from that brught about by heat and
      pressures alone. And those orders, as you point out, are complex
      from the input end. I am here to say they are also complex from the
      dampening side as well--what the biosphere as a whole does with what
      comes in.

      The confusions are there across all the horizons.

      So there are event horizons like the sun coming up from night to day--
      but then there is the electrical part---how the sun can heat and
      cause thunderstorms on one side of the earth in the afternoon and
      those thunderstorms can connect electrical conditions to the dark
      side of the earth.

      There is the sun going through the solar cycle, and what changes in
      lumenosity may have different electrical conditions that cause the
      way fronts and air currents move, just as you suggest, in different
      manners. That is because the microphysics changes mean different
      viscosity values, different ways that order moves toward disorder.

      When I have looked at my long range hurricane forecast, I have been
      looking for the solar cycle and hurricane history for climatology to
      see if I can spot what occurs globally with different solar inputs.

      When I look at what you and David are doing, I have a more complex
      set of ideas. There isn't much time for modulation to occur, either,
      other than the basic stuff, like where are the hydrate fields and
      microbial blooms and so forth. Plus the barotropic trends, where the
      SOI, NAO, PDO, ENSO is, and so forth. Then I have been looking at
      strikes, of course.

      In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, space1weather <no_reply@y...>
      wrote:
      > In this case I was referring to a specific area of the world that
      > seems to be affected during the presence of certain space weather
      > variables when certain atmopsheric oceanic teleconnections are in
      > place.
      >
      > Steering currents...trough ..ridge etc...Where will the Bermuda
      high
      > be?
      >
      > The Baranyi paper talks about the importance of different magnetic
      > field vectors etc...and it's relationship with corpuscular
      radiaton.
      > Everywhere is not effected the same. This has always been my
      thought
      > also.
      >
      > As far as C-holes and CME's. These are two different ball games
      > unless the CME is a tranisient. The Earths environment reacts
      > totally different and it should. The wave action within a CME is
      > completely different than a C-hole.
      >
      > Look at the neutron monitors yesterday. GCR level hardly changed
      > even though solar wind speed was near 700 km/sec. This is not going
      > to occur with a CME. The > 2 Mev Electron fluence levels stayed
      > above 0.0e+07. This also is not usually going to occur.
      >
      >
      >
      > Jim
      >
      >
      > --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David"
      <b1blancer1@e...>
      > wrote:
      > > I think I understand what you're getting at, Jim, and we're
      > actually
      > > talking about two different things. What I was talking about is
      > > overall solar activity associated with the solar max. If I
      > understand
      > > you correctly, you're talking about coronal holes in particular.
      > >
      > > However, I'm still confused. You'll have more days of high solar
      > wind
      > > speed with the solar max than with the bottom of the cycle.
      > > Therefore, it would seem that the connection between higher solar
      > > activity and higher terrestrial temps would still work. As far
      as
      > the
      > > Earth is concerned, a high solar wind speed is a high solar wind
      > > speed, no matter if the speedy wind is coming from a coronal hole
      > or
      > > the most recent really impressive X-class flare. That being the
      > case,
      > > I don't see how a high speed solar wind from a coronal hole can
      > cause
      > > cooling, while an active sun causes warming.
      > >
      > > Unless you're saying that the overall increase in solar energy
      > output
      > > of an active sun is enough to offset the effect of the high-speed
      > wind??
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic