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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Jun 25, 2002
    • 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 2 of 3 , Jun 28, 2002
      • 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.