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

Re: [Methane Hydrate Club] Re: Lindzen, Fu & Hartmann data

Expand Messages
  • foryeshua1@juno.com
    Mike, I don t know if I am the one you are talking to, but I did not intend to say that because some cause in water currents has caused them to be warm they
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 25, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike, I don't know if I am the one you are talking to, but I did not
      intend to say that because some cause in water currents has caused them
      to be warm they will be as a result better conductors. I meant to say
      that I believe that the SE drives the ocean currents by its primary
      charged current, and that it is warmer because of the SE 's action in it
      as a conductor. The same reason the Alaskan Oil Pipeline heats up is
      that a part of the SE is conducted by it on its way back toward the Sun.
      As far as proof is concerned the phenomena recorded on the Aopline, is
      quite enough. The current is strongest when the Pipe line is nearest it,
      and weakest when The Sun is farest away. This points to theSun as the
      source and direction of the current.
      On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:13:05 -0000 fredwx <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      writes:
      The Lindzen data was taken across a wide area of the western North
      Pacific Ocean. Their paper showed a correlation btweeen total cirrus
      cover and the underlying SST's. (the warmer the SST's the fewer cirus
      clouds). Your contention is that the cause of the effect is not the
      SST, but electrical currents generated by ocean currents moving
      across the earth's magnetic fields.

      My comment was that you could not show any evidence for your theory.
      You may or may not be correct but I see no measurments or studies
      that prove your case.

      --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
      > I never saw any love as you reacted to the Lindzen, Fu & Hartmann
      > data, even when I broke it down for you and showed pictures of wind
      > directions and SST anomalies as the main picture for our bb, so I
      > don't know what you are talking about. I think you play more the
      > cynic then the skeptic.
      >
      > The real problem is what I am descibing hasn't made a mainstream
      > journal yet. Do you think, really, that AMS or some publication
      like
      > this would print this kind of thing? My view is they have turf to
      > protect and cross over science is going to be hard to come by.
      >
      > One of the original Gaia biologists was complaining about this in
      her
      > field, and biology is where Gaia should have any problems seeing
      > publication, but indeed resistance is strong there as well.
      >
      > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., fredwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > "That's because the behavior of clouds is not understood--
      > > particularly cirrus, and how EMFs move them"
      > >
      > > I would love to see the research.
      > >
      > > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
      > > > That's because the behavior of clouds is not understood--
      > > particularly
      > > > cirrus, and how EMFs move them. New sat data on clouds, water
      > > vapor,
      > > > SSTs, and even strike locations are going to change all this.
      If
      > I
      > > > can see it, the best in meteorology will be seeing it soon.
      > > >
      > > > "Ed Boik" <eboik@c...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > as of right now, meteorology is based on physical world
      > principals
      > > > > like...thermodynamics. It doesn't consider electricty or
      > > electrical
      > > > > charges or biology to be a significant source of weather
      > > modulation.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > >>> mike@u... 06/23/02 11:11PM >>>
      > > > >
      > > > > We get these meteorological explainations of weather yet
      these
      > > are
      > > > > scientists w/ a ver narrow education. All along, they have
      > > > probably
      > > > > individually had no education or experience in EMFs, biology,
      > > > > oceanagraphy, etc. Here below is a link but a Christain Met,
      > > > Michael
      > > > > J. Oardwith, who has some met credentials, and is probably
      > > > > representative of missing in all probablility in the other
      > areas
      > > I
      > > > > mentioned, speculating on the cause of the glacials. And he
      > uses
      > > > > this concept that snow has great albedo . . .
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • pawnfart
      I meant to say ... in it ... I agree that the earth s EMF organizes these local strikes and provides a framework for the induction, but the local EMF is not
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 25, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I meant to say
        > that I believe that the SE drives the ocean currents by its primary
        > charged current, and that it is warmer because of the SE 's action
        in it
        > as a conductor.

        I agree that the earth's EMF organizes these local strikes and
        provides a framework for the induction, but the local EMF is not
        CAUSED by the SE. Why? Mostly because these local strikes and the
        SE has to deal with the earth's atmosphere, which is highly
        insulative. Strikes help distribute the EMF according to these
        currents and ion movements, as opposed to field movements. These
        movements lead to cirrus behavior that alters SSTs. Then Gaia works
        in that context. The SE really is nothing more then another chaotic
        input that Gaia must modulate. This is why I asked your background--
        if you were a biologist, surmising that you are not. Because my
        education, which is much more recent and state of the art in biology,
        from having 1,000 SSA hearings on medical issues and attending UCLA
        as an extension student, helps me to understand that the greater
        issue you would have is dealing with a forcing you describe which
        behaves in a chaotic manner--meaning that it would not be compatible
        with life surviving for BILLIONS of years.

        I do not agree 100% w/ your pipeline hypo either, but I agree that as
        you get closer to the poles Coriolis weakens AND the isobars grow
        close to the magnetic poles. I have some more comments about things
        that Dr. Gray has found about 500 mb winds in this regard related to
        TS activity, so I agree there is something to what you are saying in
        terms of complexity, but it isn't the key forcing--the biosphere's
        activity IS.





        The same reason the Alaskan Oil Pipeline heats up is
        > that a part of the SE is conducted by it on its way back toward
        the Sun.
        > As far as proof is concerned the phenomena recorded on the
        Aopline, is
        > quite enough. The current is strongest when the Pipe line is
        nearest it,
        > and weakest when The Sun is farest away. This points to theSun as
        the
        > source and direction of the current.
        > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:13:05 -0000 fredwx <no_reply@y...>
        > writes:
        > The Lindzen data was taken across a wide area of the western North
        > Pacific Ocean. Their paper showed a correlation btweeen total
        cirrus
        > cover and the underlying SST's. (the warmer the SST's the fewer
        cirus
        > clouds). Your contention is that the cause of the effect is not the
        > SST, but electrical currents generated by ocean currents moving
        > across the earth's magnetic fields.
        >
        > My comment was that you could not show any evidence for your
        theory.
        > You may or may not be correct but I see no measurments or studies
        > that prove your case.
        >
        > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
        > > I never saw any love as you reacted to the Lindzen, Fu & Hartmann
        > > data, even when I broke it down for you and showed pictures of
        wind
        > > directions and SST anomalies as the main picture for our bb, so I
        > > don't know what you are talking about. I think you play more the
        > > cynic then the skeptic.
        > >
        > > The real problem is what I am descibing hasn't made a mainstream
        > > journal yet. Do you think, really, that AMS or some publication
        > like
        > > this would print this kind of thing? My view is they have turf
        to
        > > protect and cross over science is going to be hard to come by.
        > >
        > > One of the original Gaia biologists was complaining about this in
        > her
        > > field, and biology is where Gaia should have any problems seeing
        > > publication, but indeed resistance is strong there as well.
        > >
        > > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., fredwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > > > "That's because the behavior of clouds is not understood--
        > > > particularly cirrus, and how EMFs move them"
        > > >
        > > > I would love to see the research.
        > > >
        > > > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
        > > > > That's because the behavior of clouds is not understood--
        > > > particularly
        > > > > cirrus, and how EMFs move them. New sat data on clouds,
        water
        > > > vapor,
        > > > > SSTs, and even strike locations are going to change all
        this.
        > If
        > > I
        > > > > can see it, the best in meteorology will be seeing it soon.
        > > > >
        > > > > "Ed Boik" <eboik@c...> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > > as of right now, meteorology is based on physical world
        > > principals
        > > > > > like...thermodynamics. It doesn't consider electricty or
        > > > electrical
        > > > > > charges or biology to be a significant source of weather
        > > > modulation.
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>> mike@u... 06/23/02 11:11PM >>>
        > > > > >
        > > > > > We get these meteorological explainations of weather yet
        > these
        > > > are
        > > > > > scientists w/ a ver narrow education. All along, they have
        > > > > probably
        > > > > > individually had no education or experience in EMFs,
        biology,
        > > > > > oceanagraphy, etc. Here below is a link but a Christain
        Met,
        > > > > Michael
        > > > > > J. Oardwith, who has some met credentials, and is probably
        > > > > > representative of missing in all probablility in the other
        > > areas
        > > > I
        > > > > > mentioned, speculating on the cause of the glacials. And
        he
        > > uses
        > > > > > this concept that snow has great albedo . . .
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@y...
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
        Service.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • fredwx
        You said The opposite is true: The Coriolis force
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 28, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          You said <<"as you get closer to the poles Coriolis weakens AND the
          isobars grow close to the magnetic poles.">>

          The opposite is true:

          "The Coriolis force (effect)is a function of the speed of the
          particle and the latitude (f=2*Omega*sine(latitude))and is directed
          to the right (at 90 degrees) of the motion for particles in the N.
          Hem. (to the left of the motion for particles moving in the S. Hem.)"

          The sine of 0 degrees (equator) is 0, thus the cf=0
          The sine of 90 degrees (pole) is 1, thus the cf=max

          http://www.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/~hindman/eas6200E_EES799.03/Chapter05-
          K.htm



          --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
          > I meant to say
          > > that I believe that the SE drives the ocean currents by its
          primary
          > > charged current, and that it is warmer because of the SE 's
          action
          > in it
          > > as a conductor.
          >
          > I agree that the earth's EMF organizes these local strikes and
          > provides a framework for the induction, but the local EMF is not
          > CAUSED by the SE. Why? Mostly because these local strikes and the
          > SE has to deal with the earth's atmosphere, which is highly
          > insulative. Strikes help distribute the EMF according to these
          > currents and ion movements, as opposed to field movements. These
          > movements lead to cirrus behavior that alters SSTs. Then Gaia
          works
          > in that context. The SE really is nothing more then another
          chaotic
          > input that Gaia must modulate. This is why I asked your background-
          -
          > if you were a biologist, surmising that you are not. Because my
          > education, which is much more recent and state of the art in
          biology,
          > from having 1,000 SSA hearings on medical issues and attending UCLA
          > as an extension student, helps me to understand that the greater
          > issue you would have is dealing with a forcing you describe which
          > behaves in a chaotic manner--meaning that it would not be
          compatible
          > with life surviving for BILLIONS of years.
          >
          > I do not agree 100% w/ your pipeline hypo either, but I agree that
          as
          > you get closer to the poles Coriolis weakens AND the isobars grow
          > close to the magnetic poles. I have some more comments about
          things
          > that Dr. Gray has found about 500 mb winds in this regard related
          to
          > TS activity, so I agree there is something to what you are saying
          in
          > terms of complexity, but it isn't the key forcing--the biosphere's
          > activity IS.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > The same reason the Alaskan Oil Pipeline heats up is
          > > that a part of the SE is conducted by it on its way back toward
          > the Sun.
          > > As far as proof is concerned the phenomena recorded on the
          > Aopline, is
          > > quite enough. The current is strongest when the Pipe line is
          > nearest it,
          > > and weakest when The Sun is farest away. This points to theSun
          as
          > the
          > > source and direction of the current.
          > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:13:05 -0000 fredwx <no_reply@y...>
          > > writes:
          > > The Lindzen data was taken across a wide area of the western
          North
          > > Pacific Ocean. Their paper showed a correlation btweeen total
          > cirrus
          > > cover and the underlying SST's. (the warmer the SST's the fewer
          > cirus
          > > clouds). Your contention is that the cause of the effect is not
          the
          > > SST, but electrical currents generated by ocean currents moving
          > > across the earth's magnetic fields.
          > >
          > > My comment was that you could not show any evidence for your
          > theory.
          > > You may or may not be correct but I see no measurments or studies
          > > that prove your case.
          > >
          > > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
          > > > I never saw any love as you reacted to the Lindzen, Fu &
          Hartmann
          > > > data, even when I broke it down for you and showed pictures of
          > wind
          > > > directions and SST anomalies as the main picture for our bb, so
          I
          > > > don't know what you are talking about. I think you play more
          the
          > > > cynic then the skeptic.
          > > >
          > > > The real problem is what I am descibing hasn't made a
          mainstream
          > > > journal yet. Do you think, really, that AMS or some
          publication
          > > like
          > > > this would print this kind of thing? My view is they have turf
          > to
          > > > protect and cross over science is going to be hard to come by.
          > > >
          > > > One of the original Gaia biologists was complaining about this
          in
          > > her
          > > > field, and biology is where Gaia should have any problems
          seeing
          > > > publication, but indeed resistance is strong there as well.
          > > >
          > > > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., fredwx <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > > > > "That's because the behavior of clouds is not understood--
          > > > > particularly cirrus, and how EMFs move them"
          > > > >
          > > > > I would love to see the research.
          > > > >
          > > > > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
          > > > > > That's because the behavior of clouds is not understood--
          > > > > particularly
          > > > > > cirrus, and how EMFs move them. New sat data on clouds,
          > water
          > > > > vapor,
          > > > > > SSTs, and even strike locations are going to change all
          > this.
          > > If
          > > > I
          > > > > > can see it, the best in meteorology will be seeing it soon.
          > > > > >
          > > > > > "Ed Boik" <eboik@c...> wrote:
          > > > > >
          > > > > > > as of right now, meteorology is based on physical world
          > > > principals
          > > > > > > like...thermodynamics. It doesn't consider electricty or
          > > > > electrical
          > > > > > > charges or biology to be a significant source of weather
          > > > > modulation.
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > >>> mike@u... 06/23/02 11:11PM >>>
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > We get these meteorological explainations of weather yet
          > > these
          > > > > are
          > > > > > > scientists w/ a ver narrow education. All along, they
          have
          > > > > > probably
          > > > > > > individually had no education or experience in EMFs,
          > biology,
          > > > > > > oceanagraphy, etc. Here below is a link but a Christain
          > Met,
          > > > > > Michael
          > > > > > > J. Oardwith, who has some met credentials, and is
          probably
          > > > > > > representative of missing in all probablility in the
          other
          > > > areas
          > > > > I
          > > > > > > mentioned, speculating on the cause of the glacials. And
          > he
          > > > uses
          > > > > > > this concept that snow has great albedo . . .
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@y...
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          > Service.
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.