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

SOI strongly NEG for first time in awhile

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscil lationIndex/30DaySOIValues/ Date Tahiti Darwin Daily** 30 day 90
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 26, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscil
      lationIndex/30DaySOIValues/

      Date Tahiti Darwin Daily** 30 day 90 day


      27-Nov-2002 1010.03 1011.75 -29.30 0.06 -5.50


      But it goes along with SSTs in ENSO 1-4 that now have a thin strip of
      yellow anomalies inside the red area that normally would indicate an
      El Nino. There are seven bands of Doran wave impacted SSTs from pole
      to pole compared to three in 1997, and that strip is consistant with
      this.

      It's all electrical, baby!!
    • David
      Hey Mike! I ve been thinking about you. How s your grandfather? Is everybody doing ok?
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 27, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hey Mike! I've been thinking about you. How's your grandfather? Is
        everybody doing ok?
      • Mike Doran
        My grandfather passed on . . . Saturday. Saw him on Friday and said goodbye. Missed the funeral today because he lived longer then they thought he would
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 27, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          My grandfather passed on . . . Saturday. Saw him on Friday and said
          goodbye. Missed the funeral today because he lived longer then they
          thought he would without water without an IV (he couldn't swallow).
          It was anti-climatic because he was very sick and not really there.

          Thanks for asking.

          More later.

          --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
          > Hey Mike! I've been thinking about you. How's your grandfather?
          Is
          > everybody doing ok?
        • David
          ... I m very sorry to hear that he s gone, but I m glad you got a chance to say goodbye to him. I know how important that is. Don t sweat missing the
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 28, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
            > My grandfather passed on . . . Saturday. Saw him on Friday and said
            > goodbye. Missed the funeral today because he lived longer then they
            > thought he would without water without an IV (he couldn't swallow).
            > It was anti-climatic because he was very sick and not really there.
            >
            > Thanks for asking.
            >
            > More later.
            >

            I'm very sorry to hear that he's gone, but I'm glad you got a chance
            to say goodbye to him. I know how important that is. Don't sweat
            missing the funeral. Funerals aren't for those who have passed on,
            but for the family and friends who remain. It sounds like you loved
            your Grandfather and cared for him while he was still here, which is
            far more important than attending a funeral. My prayers are with you.
          • Mike Doran
            My grandmother had just left the hospital with my mother and sisters and was arriving home with us when the hospital s message came and gave us the news of his
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 28, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              My grandmother had just left the hospital with my mother and sisters
              and was arriving home with us when the hospital's message came and
              gave us the news of his passing. My father and her hugging in grief
              was just about all I could take and while I was holding it together
              in my greif I admit sobbing uncontrolbably for some time seeing them
              in the pain of his passing.

              Grandfather was the oldest of nine children, and survived all his
              brothers and sisters--by 5 years. He survived the Battle of the
              Bulge. He survived everyone except his wife of 71 years--who herself
              was born in 1908.


              For the first time this weekend I told my father , an Air Force
              meteorologist in the 1960s, some of my ideas and he listened proudly
              and when I told him that these ideas were very political he didn't
              understand how they could be political. He moved from meteorology to
              computer science/EE since computers were first made in the 1960s
              (first w/ Control Data end then with spin offs) and knows his EMFs
              well. He understood, for instance, that strikes were good "fractal"
              evidence of large scale ALTERNATING EMFs despite their direct current
              nature. He understood how clouds and fair weather were also good
              fractal evidence--and even that fractal evidence is a good way of
              synthesizing the data.

              My brother, who is educated as a biologist, was more cynical and was
              stuck on the uncertainty presented with all of the variables that
              impact on climate, from humidity to the sun . . . I tried to explain
              to him how powerful the postulation of modulation is in terms of its
              testability and then how emperical the genetic data was on symbiotic
              relationships shown, for instance, with Archae and that modulation
              obviates the uncertainty arguement made by chaos idiots. Arguing
              global change from this perspective is like arguing that your body
              having a fever is not a symptom of health




              I think my brother considers me a little crazy and that I should
              leave this hobby of climate change alone and stick to the practice of
              law. But when I started talking about predicting body temperatures
              despite all the variables that impact your body's temperature, he
              really had difficulty arguing like a chaos idiot. Part of the problem
              is in the translation of going from complex to general, which is
              necessary when synthesis is occurring, my brother was suspicious of
              the general biological discussion I was making.

              It wasn't that I was disagreeing with my brother in the ideas he was
              denoting from his ken or speicalization, but that the CONNOTATION was
              not correct. That in the process of correctly synthesizing these
              ideas into a coherent and wholistic set of ideas that one could make
              critical policy decisions about what he was saying was misleading and
              that was with what I strongly disagreed. In my brother's case, our
              discussion digressed to what the temperature of the skin would be
              under cold water, and then after when the cold water was gone and the
              skin glowed red--all the variables--yet, we know to look inside the
              ear or under the tongue or under the arm pit to get a good biological
              reading.

              As another example of what I am talking about--on ABC there was a
              discussion of the storm earlier this month that first hit San Fran
              then spawned tornadoes then gave us a Nor'easter was somehow related
              to El Nino. This, to me, is circular and simplistic and more
              misleading then helpful. When Southern Californians think about El
              Nino they think wet winters but indeed it has been bone dry . . . if
              only the Colorado river health and the biological and electrical
              health of the Gulf of California were discussed in the same breath
              half of California wouldn't think that the worst drought in recorded
              weather history in Southern California was about to end . . .

              With my brother, for instance, more concerned WHY he viewed my
              comments on biology . . . with cynacism. He was part of the genome
              project and works for corporative America--so from the get go I know
              he is less suspecious of the corporative state we currently suffer
              from. But more then this the generalist, like myself, attempting to
              translate cross disciplinary concerns, is going to run against the
              emotions he demostrated. This younger brother, I know. I taught him
              how to throw a curve ball. And I know what kind of a student he was,
              and about his job at the University's Heart and Lung Institute doing
              DNA research. I visited, and saw the resections of the living,
              drugged mice and how the hearts were put in liquid nitrogen for
              sequencing and so forth. I know my brother's opinion about his field
              is unfettered by greed or vice. He holds it because he thinks it is
              right.

              But it comes with a context of his education and culture. And it is
              basically a state of the science one for those in biological
              sciences. I say this because it means that the things that I have to
              say about climate as a generalist here have implications that cut
              across disciplines and lead to insight and controversy--EVERYWHERE.

              There is a very cool Brit research Med Doc named Joejohn McFadden who
              has two systems books out. His one book is on quatum selection and I
              learned about it over at the creation/evolution thread. Anyway, it
              discusses how evolution has reacted to selective pressures on very
              small, quantum scales, that over geo time have significance in the
              gene expression. So this is the other end of the spectrum of what I
              am talking about, and his work is no less controversial for those in
              the biological sciences who view selection as from processes of
              random mutations. He suggests a tie, for instance, between quatum
              states and the way that the DNA might more actively mutate with a
              feedback involved that varies probabilities of mutation given
              conditions, and this is way outside of the accepted view of things
              that mutations are random. Likewise, Gaia makes a comment on the
              selective pressures themselves.

              You would not believe the look of distrust from my brother when I was
              talking about the Archae's evolved lack of complexity--that it
              evolved such that it doesn't, which suggests that it is elemental to
              Gaia processes in that if it does change it loses its very function
              to modulate living processes--such that it wipes itself out. Hence,
              it evolved AGAINST complexity.

              My Gaia view is that over huge timescales we have already seen
              McFadden's quantum selection in the form of oxydized chemistry and
              that smoking and cancer is a good example of it--that Gaia would
              promote those mutations to increase when "smoke" or oxydized
              chemistry was about--because that was not the state of a living
              earth. Hence, cancer from smoking is not a random defect that turns
              out to be bad but an mathematical enhancement that reflects a genetic
              pre history that favored mutation when the atmosphere became too full
              of smoke. Humans, as complex creatures not only on the functional
              side but on the genetic side, have learned to use fire despite the
              microbrial biosphere's abhorance to it . . . with the aside that,
              yes, fire has a purpose in regions that WERE part of a living
              hydrology to burn them up w/ fair weather dominance and redistribute
              living chemistry back to where the hydrology exists . . .

              McFadden's other book involves consciousness as an EMF. This too is
              interesting from a Gaia standpoint because it really touches in on
              what it means to be conscious on a human level, and on the level of a
              living earth. And I can almost see an atmospheric specialist like
              Christy, who doubles as a Christain minister, turning different
              colors in rage over this discussion, and of course the typical
              Christain prone to ranking on me--calling me a earth worshipper--
              another golden calf. Christains are taught from an early age, or
              should I say indoctrinated, that there are horrible sects, from witch
              craft to Catholics, who will send you to hell--so I can only imagine
              that this global evolutionary science named after the greek goddess
              who dealt with chaos would not sit well with those who try to carry
              the torch of science and Christainity at the same time.

              But carrying many torches is a badge of the contradictions that occur
              as it means to be human.

              ++++++++++++++++++

              Climate emperically behaves in a steady state. Huge numbers of
              factors that determine weather and hence cumulatively, climate, do
              not point toward a random process or dynamic. To the contrary, by
              process of rejecting the infinately improbable, of chaos times
              itself, does one come to understand that it is modulation was,
              modulation is, and the biological context it demostrates.

              At the risk of stating the obvious, I have make a couple of
              observations. First, climate is NOT weather. This is either in common
              usage or in technical. Weather certainly is dominated by more random
              inputs. Indeed, it is very much like my brother nit picking about
              skin temperature in various places. The room temperature can vary and
              may even be influenced substantially by the warm bodies inside of it,
              but at the end of the day the body remains regulated as to
              temperature and chemistry.

              Likewise, if one were to discuss Milankovitch even as a "chaotic
              oscillator" and do so in the context of global temperatures, the
              discussion would miss whether or not the biosphere continued, where
              it existed, even to a lessor extent, to modulate regional chemistries
              and temperatures. This includes the idea that the biosphere could
              move a bit.

              But no matter where one goes with this discussion over which
              triumphs, chaos or modulation, you must come to the conclusion that
              the biosphere has prevailed over billions of years, and that the
              examples of Mars and Venus, close to conditions of earth in terms of
              orbital distance from the sun on either extreme, are places where
              life could not exist. And if indeed the inputs were so random, so
              chaotic to include extremes of insOlation and even extremes of solar
              activity, radiation or electrical, that one would expect periods of
              time when the biosphere would be severely tested. By itself, this
              lends itself to a thought that life could not regulate conditions in
              but a few places on earth and to the Gaia untrained eye the climate
              is examined as a whole--making it appear that life is not modulating
              what it can and that life is subject to conditions rather then in
              control of them.

              But over huge timescales there is more. The very character of the
              siesmic and erosion processes was different. CO2 levels were greater,
              say, in the Carbonferious and CO2 forms carbonic acid, which would
              increase weathering rates. Oceans warmer and shallow which would
              allow the hydrates to be more EMF proximate and the calcium
              carbanate's impact to be less of a EMF sink. Upwelling events would
              have differed. This would present altogether much different and
              greater EMF feedbacks of heat retaining cirrus in the CONTEXT OF A
              LESS LUMENOUS SUN. Hence, not only is Carl Sagan's mystery of a less
              lumenous sun solved, but this certainly addresses the question of
              whether globally climate emperically behaves in a steady state or
              not. Without question a warmer, shallower ocean would produce more
              electrical cirrus feedbacks. And while this may answer how the
              regional hydrology would be warm enough to support a signal to noise
              ratio that allowed local modulation of temperature and chemistry,
              there is likely more to it. For instance, recently a microbe was
              discovered that consumes (crude) oil and converts it to electrons.
              For what purpose would that creature act so? And why would we only
              now discover it--acting not in a global, or even a regional way that
              would alter large scale EMFs? What about an age of oil, running down
              the hydrology to the near shore oceans where these microbes might
              exist, would provide a living earth feedback to the hydrology I
              describe? How does this fit into Carl Sagan's picture of a increasing
              lumenousity compare to this? How about selective pressures from the
              so called "Snow Ball Earth's" as this dynamic was challenged?

              The sum of it is that there is a failure in the climate discussion to
              recognize that the reactions of the biosphere, which we can observe
              emperically by DNA or other sets of data, has been ignored for what
              it is. We recognize DNA in legal causes, but not in this debate? Why?
              My view, again, is that the debate is dominated by those of narrow
              kens who do not have biology backgrounds. They cannot make these
              decidedly emperical comments, nor would their scholarly publications
              include this type of analysis. One of the more ironic aspects of this
              problem is how many in the climate community require more time to
              observe the present human activity to understand its implications.
              Sadly, they do not recognize the data that spans billions of
              years . . . life itself.

              Hoover, the great dam builder as Secratary of the Interior before his
              Presidency, was a Republican. I have called Bush "Hoover II", just as
              Bush was an ENRON oil type prior to his presidency, because his
              fiscal and ecology policies will have the same impact on the world.
              To me, Bush is the most dangerous, or evil person on the planet,
              whether intended or not--leadership should be addressing climate
              square on like Nixon took on cancer. But Bush continues to put out
              the fire with gasoline, continues to push road fascism in the face of
              Hubbert's peak. Anyone who knows what I know and would not be
              political would be a FOOL.

              In November 1997 Three Gorge was diverted and the Pac NW following a
              500 year El Nino suffered a drought that has spred, IMHO, from the NW
              down to the SW. Mongolia, proximate to the diversion from an EMF
              standpoint, suffered a dust bowl not unlike our dust bowl following
              changes to the Rio, Colorado, and Mississippi.

              The river was rediverted to the partially completed dam last month,
              and by 2009 it will be completed, with a lake behind the dam the size
              of Lake Superior. The consequences to the Pacific biosphere will be a
              disaster, in my view.

              Interestingly, the more proximate changes to the delta seem to have
              the greatest impact on the gaia feedbacks, which are tied to the near
              shore ocean for much the same reasons why a tropical storm cannot be
              sustained over land--electrical field of large scale lose their
              conductive context. In the case of China since the Three Gorge
              diversion there has been massive movements of millions of people to
              the Yangtze delta (river involved w/ the dam) and sedimentation
              retaining projects ongoing to deal with the demand for more land for
              these peoples. The flow of biological material into the Yellow Sea
              clearly has been altered. Meanwhile, near delta projects on the
              Mississippi have altered the landfalling character of storms in the
              GOM, which is something I have analyzed here all season. Similar
              projects occurred just prior to Camille's landfall . . . These
              changes are concurrent w/ farming changes upstream, and a delta which
              has been losing over 25 square miles every year goiong now for over
              ten years. CO2 as carbonic acid will increase pH. (A doubling will
              rise pH about .15, or make rainwater more acidic). This too will
              alter weathering, and the greatest impacts will be in the Northern
              Hemisphere were there is more terresphere.

              The scientific community has a long way to go on climate, and a ton
              of political and social and religious evil to overcome getting there.





              --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "David" <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
              > --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
              > > My grandfather passed on . . . Saturday. Saw him on Friday and
              said
              > > goodbye. Missed the funeral today because he lived longer then
              they
              > > thought he would without water without an IV (he couldn't
              swallow).
              > > It was anti-climatic because he was very sick and not really
              there.
              > >
              > > Thanks for asking.
              > >
              > > More later.
              > >
              >
              > I'm very sorry to hear that he's gone, but I'm glad you got a chance
              > to say goodbye to him. I know how important that is. Don't sweat
              > missing the funeral. Funerals aren't for those who have passed on,
              > but for the family and friends who remain. It sounds like you loved
              > your Grandfather and cared for him while he was still here, which is
              > far more important than attending a funeral. My prayers are with
              you.
            • David
              I just wanted to let you know that I m not ignoring the last post you made. Its just that I haven t had a chance to compose a reply yet. You covered a lot of
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 30, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring the last post you
                made. Its just that I haven't had a chance to compose a reply yet.
                You covered a lot of ground! I will be answering back, probably
                Monday evening.
              • David
                ... Boy do I know how you feel. Somehow, no matter how long you have to prepare for something like that, it always seems like you aren t quite prepared for it
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
                  > My grandmother had just left the hospital with my mother and sisters
                  > and was arriving home with us when the hospital's message came and
                  > gave us the news of his passing. My father and her hugging in grief
                  > was just about all I could take and while I was holding it together
                  > in my greif I admit sobbing uncontrolbably for some time seeing them
                  > in the pain of his passing.
                  >

                  Boy do I know how you feel. Somehow, no matter how long you have to
                  prepare for something like that, it always seems like you aren't quite
                  prepared for it when it happens.

                  > Grandfather was the oldest of nine children, and survived all his
                  > brothers and sisters--by 5 years. He survived the Battle of the
                  > Bulge. He survived everyone except his wife of 71 years--who herself
                  > was born in 1908.
                  >

                  He sounds like an incredible man, who lead a very full and rewarding
                  life. You and your family have my sincere condolences.


                  >
                  > My brother, who is educated as a biologist, was more cynical and was
                  > stuck on the uncertainty presented with all of the variables that
                  > impact on climate, from humidity to the sun . . . I tried to explain
                  > to him how powerful the postulation of modulation is in terms of its
                  > testability and then how emperical the genetic data was on symbiotic
                  > relationships shown, for instance, with Archae and that modulation
                  > obviates the uncertainty arguement made by chaos idiots. Arguing
                  > global change from this perspective is like arguing that your body
                  > having a fever is not a symptom of health

                  Well, in a way, your brother does have a point. There ARE many
                  variables that impact climate, only some of which man has an
                  understing of. It is a tremendously dynamic, fluid process.

                  >
                  > I think my brother considers me a little crazy and that I should
                  > leave this hobby of climate change alone and stick to the practice of
                  > law.

                  You're a lawyer? Cool! I didn't know that!



                  > His one book is on quatum selection and I
                  > learned about it over at the creation/evolution thread. Anyway, it
                  > discusses how evolution has reacted to selective pressures on very
                  > small, quantum scales, that over geo time have significance in the
                  > gene expression. So this is the other end of the spectrum of what I
                  > am talking about, and his work is no less controversial for those in
                  > the biological sciences who view selection as from processes of
                  > random mutations. He suggests a tie, for instance, between quatum
                  > states and the way that the DNA might more actively mutate with a
                  > feedback involved that varies probabilities of mutation given
                  > conditions, and this is way outside of the accepted view of things
                  > that mutations are random. Likewise, Gaia makes a comment on the
                  > selective pressures themselves.

                  Quantum mechanics and the changing of genes? Now there's a link I
                  hadn't heard about before, but it does sound very interesting.

                  > And I can almost see an atmospheric specialist like
                  > Christy, who doubles as a Christain minister, turning different
                  > colors in rage over this discussion, and of course the typical
                  > Christain prone to ranking on me--calling me a earth worshipper--
                  > another golden calf. Christains are taught from an early age, or
                  > should I say indoctrinated, that there are horrible sects, from witch
                  > craft to Catholics, who will send you to hell--so I can only imagine
                  > that this global evolutionary science named after the greek goddess
                  > who dealt with chaos would not sit well with those who try to carry
                  > the torch of science and Christainity at the same time.

                  I think that perhaps you're unfairly stereotyping Christians. I am a
                  Born-Again Christian, and I am not ashamed of that, nor do I try to
                  hide it. I suppose I do, however, match your description of being a
                  devotee of science while also being a Christian.

                  >
                  > But carrying many torches is a badge of the contradictions that occur
                  > as it means to be human.

                  On the contrary, I don't see it as a contradiction at all. In fact, I
                  think they compliment each other very nicely.

                  >
                  > But over huge timescales there is more. The very character of the
                  > siesmic and erosion processes was different. CO2 levels were greater,
                  > say, in the Carbonferious and CO2 forms carbonic acid, which would
                  > increase weathering rates. Oceans warmer and shallow which would
                  > allow the hydrates to be more EMF proximate and the calcium
                  > carbanate's impact to be less of a EMF sink. Upwelling events would
                  > have differed. This would present altogether much different and
                  > greater EMF feedbacks of heat retaining cirrus in the CONTEXT OF A
                  > LESS LUMENOUS SUN. Hence, not only is Carl Sagan's mystery of a less
                  > lumenous sun solved, but this certainly addresses the question of
                  > whether globally climate emperically behaves in a steady state or
                  > not.

                  I'm not familiar with the Carl Sagan theory you mentioned, but it
                  would be a mistake to believe that our sun's output has remained
                  completely constant throughout its life. Extensive observations have
                  shown that the energy output of even stable stars is not constant, but
                  is subject to some striking variations.

                  > For instance, recently a microbe was
                  > discovered that consumes (crude) oil and converts it to electrons.

                  Converts it to electrons??? I don't think you meant that the way it
                  came across!



                  > Bush was an ENRON oil type prior to his presidency, because his
                  > fiscal and ecology policies will have the same impact on the world.
                  > To me, Bush is the most dangerous, or evil person on the planet,
                  > whether intended or not--leadership should be addressing climate
                  > square on like Nixon took on cancer. But Bush continues to put out
                  > the fire with gasoline, continues to push road fascism in the face of
                  > Hubbert's peak. Anyone who knows what I know and would not be
                  > political would be a FOOL.

                  Oh come ON now! More dangerous and evil than Bin Laden? More than
                  Hussein? You may not agree with him, but I think this is taking it
                  much too far.

                  >
                  > In November 1997 Three Gorge was diverted and the Pac NW following a
                  > 500 year El Nino suffered a drought that has spred, IMHO, from the NW
                  > down to the SW. Mongolia, proximate to the diversion from an EMF
                  > standpoint, suffered a dust bowl not unlike our dust bowl following
                  > changes to the Rio, Colorado, and Mississippi.
                  >

                  Now I will back you up on this one, if maybe for different reasons. I
                  don't see how in the world they are going to handle the silt problem
                  up at the high end of the resevoir, far away from the dam. It would
                  have to be a dredging project like the world has never seen, and I
                  don't think they can pull it off. Add to that the fact that the
                  unless the dam is maintained VERY well, it is a very bad accident
                  waiting to happen. I fear for the people who are going to be
                  downstream from it. China has already lost one big dam because they
                  didn't maintain the floodgates and spillways properly, and a lot of
                  people died. This one scares me.
                • mike
                  ... You are not here writing about an earth 7,000 years old. The Christian faith is much younger than this. Some find this a difficult thing to resolve. In
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > <BR>
                    > > His one book is on quatum selection and I <BR>
                    > > learned about it over at the creation/evolution thread. Anyway, it
                    > <BR>
                    > > discusses how evolution has reacted to selective pressures on very
                    > <BR>
                    > > small, quantum scales, that over geo time have significance in the
                    > <BR>
                    > > gene expression. So this is the other end of the spectrum of what
                    > I <BR>
                    > > am talking about, and his work is no less controversial for those
                    > in <BR>
                    > > the biological sciences who view selection as from processes of
                    > <BR>
                    > > random mutations. He suggests a tie, for instance, between quatum
                    > <BR>
                    > > states and the way that the DNA might more actively mutate with a
                    > <BR>
                    > > feedback involved that varies probabilities of mutation given <BR>
                    > > conditions, and this is way outside of the accepted view of things
                    > <BR>
                    > > that mutations are random. Likewise, Gaia makes a comment on the
                    > <BR>
                    > > selective pressures themselves. <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > Quantum mechanics and the changing of genes?  Now there's a link
                    > I<BR>
                    > hadn't heard about before, but it does sound very interesting.<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > >  And I can almost see an atmospheric specialist like <BR>
                    > > Christy, who doubles as a Christain minister, turning different
                    > <BR>
                    > > colors in rage over this discussion, and of course the typical
                    > <BR>
                    > > Christain prone to ranking on me--calling me a earth
                    > worshipper--<BR>
                    > > another golden calf. Christains are taught from an early age, or
                    > <BR>
                    > > should I say indoctrinated, that there are horrible sects, from
                    > witch <BR>
                    > > craft to Catholics, who will send you to hell--so I can only
                    > imagine <BR>
                    > > that this global evolutionary science named after the greek
                    > goddess <BR>
                    > > who dealt with chaos would not sit well with those who try to
                    > carry <BR>
                    > > the torch of science and Christainity at the same time. <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > I think that perhaps you're unfairly stereotyping Christians.  I
                    > am a<BR>
                    > Born-Again Christian, and I am not ashamed of that, nor do I try to<BR>
                    > hide it.  I suppose I do, however, match your description of being
                    > a<BR>
                    > devotee of science while also being a Christian. <BR>

                    You are not here writing about an earth 7,000 years old. The Christian
                    faith is much younger than this. Some find this a difficult thing to
                    resolve. In the end, I am probably more of a Kirkagaurdian Christian--
                    but, you know, if you meet Jesus 2,000 years ago and weren't a wine
                    drinker, more of a beer drinker like me, you may not have gone to the
                    same bars . . .

                    > > But over huge timescales there is more. The very character of the
                    > <BR>
                    > > siesmic and erosion processes was different. CO2 levels were
                    > greater, <BR>
                    > > say, in the Carbonferious and CO2 forms carbonic acid, which would
                    > <BR>
                    > > increase weathering rates. Oceans warmer and shallow which would
                    > <BR>
                    > > allow the hydrates to be more EMF proximate and the calcium <BR>
                    > > carbanate's impact to be less of a EMF sink. Upwelling events
                    > would <BR>
                    > > have differed. This would present altogether much different and
                    > <BR>
                    > > greater EMF feedbacks of heat retaining cirrus in the CONTEXT OF A
                    > <BR>
                    > > LESS LUMENOUS SUN. Hence, not only is Carl Sagan's mystery of a
                    > less <BR>
                    > > lumenous sun solved, but this certainly addresses the question of
                    > <BR>
                    > > whether globally climate emperically behaves in a steady state or
                    > <BR>
                    > > not. <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > I'm not familiar with the Carl Sagan theory you mentioned, but it<BR>
                    > would be a mistake to believe that our sun's output has remained<BR>
                    > completely constant throughout its life.  Extensive observations
                    > have<BR>
                    > shown that the energy output of even stable stars is not constant,
                    > but<BR>
                    > is subject to some striking variations.<BR>

                    I am not familiar w/ theories of shorter term variability other then the
                    one related to the sun's EMF.

                    However, Sagan's famous essay discussion centers around an early, cooler
                    sun over huge timescales. As you may know, that was Sagan's field.
                    Anyway, he talked about how on billion year timescales the sun was 25%
                    less lumenous. The future faces a similar problem even before the red
                    giant phase.

                    What you are saying about variability only ADDS to my point. Namely that
                    a chaotic system is inconsistant with our sun's behavior if climate is
                    steady as it is. IOW, you have changing input into a chaotic system it
                    is going to be even MORE crazy everywhere, when indeed there are tropical
                    places, cold places and so forth. Modulation of chaotic inputs makes
                    much more sense if what we are discovering is MORE varied input. It
                    makes the modulation that much more critical.

                    > <BR>
                    > > For instance, recently a microbe was <BR>
                    > > discovered that consumes (crude) oil and converts it to electrons.
                    > <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > Converts it to electrons???  I don't think you meant that the way
                    > it<BR>
                    > came across!<BR>


                    I do need to re-look up this one. The notion I gather was that
                    collectively these microbes acted like biological fuel cells. I will
                    look this one up again.

                    > <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > > Bush was an ENRON oil type prior to his presidency, because his
                    > <BR>
                    > > fiscal and ecology policies will have the same impact on the
                    > world. <BR>
                    > > To me, Bush is the most dangerous, or evil person on the planet,
                    > <BR>
                    > > whether intended or not--leadership should be addressing climate
                    > <BR>
                    > > square on like Nixon took on cancer. But Bush continues to put out
                    > <BR>
                    > > the fire with gasoline, continues to push road fascism in the face
                    > of <BR>
                    > > Hubbert's peak. Anyone who knows what I know and would not be <BR>
                    > > political would be a FOOL. <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > Oh come ON now!  More dangerous and evil than Bin Laden? 
                    > More than<BR>
                    > Hussein?  You may not agree with him, but I think this is taking
                    > it<BR>
                    > much too far.<BR>


                    Bin Laden's and Husein's of the world exist but they do not have the
                    ability to hurt so many people. Bush scares me way more then these two.
                    And BTW, I was active in the military during desert 'shield', but I was
                    lucky to be inactivated as a reserve during the 'storm' part of it. In
                    my view Bush is wagging the dog bigtime and this is all about oil.


                    > <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > > In November 1997 Three Gorge was diverted and the Pac NW following
                    > a <BR>
                    > > 500 year El Nino suffered a drought that has spred, IMHO, from the
                    > NW <BR>
                    > > down to the SW. Mongolia, proximate to the diversion from an EMF
                    > <BR>
                    > > standpoint, suffered a dust bowl not unlike our dust bowl
                    > following <BR>
                    > > changes to the Rio, Colorado, and Mississippi. <BR>
                    > > <BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > Now I will back you up on this one, if maybe for different
                    > reasons.  I<BR>
                    > don't see how in the world they are going to handle the silt
                    > problem<BR>
                    > up at the high end of the resevoir, far away from the dam.  It
                    > would<BR>
                    > have to be a dredging project like the world has never seen, and I<BR>
                    > don't think they can pull it off.  Add to that the fact that
                    > the<BR>
                    > unless the dam is maintained VERY well, it is a very bad accident<BR>
                    > waiting to happen.  I fear for the people who are going to be<BR>
                    > downstream from it.  China has already lost one big dam because
                    > they<BR>
                    > didn't maintain the floodgates and spillways properly, and a lot of<BR>
                    > people died.  This one scares me.<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > <BR>

                    The dam has holes in it for the mud, but this does not address how sed
                    and flow will alter the biological conditions in the oceans . . .
                    > <BR>
                    > </tt>
                    >
                    > <br>
                    >
                    > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                    >
                    > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
                    > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
                    > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
                    > Sponsor</b></font></td>
                    > </tr>
                    > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
                    > <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0>
                    > <tr> <td align=center><font face=arial
                    > size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
                    > href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/
                    > S=1705083601:HM/A=1328027/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870030;75
                    > 86687;u?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01"><img
                    > src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/am/ameriquest/yahoo_300x250_lo
                    > wer.gif" alt="" width="300" height="250"
                    > border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
                    > </tr>
                    > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
                    > src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=
                    > egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1328027/rand=273384282"></td></tr>
                    > </table>
                    >
                    > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                    >
                    >
                    > <br>
                    > <tt>
                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
                    > methanehydrateclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                    > <BR>
                    > </tt>
                    > <br>
                    >
                    > <br>
                    > <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
                    > href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of
                    > Service</a>.</tt>
                    > </br>
                    >
                    > </body></html>
                  • David
                    ... True, the Christ part of the faith has only been around since Jesus walked the Earth. However, the Jewissh roots go back much, much further. ... the ...
                    Message 9 of 11 , Dec 4, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > You are not here writing about an earth 7,000 years old. The Christian
                      > faith is much younger than this. Some find this a difficult thing to
                      > resolve. In the end, I am probably more of a Kirkagaurdian Christian--
                      > but, you know, if you meet Jesus 2,000 years ago and weren't a wine
                      > drinker, more of a beer drinker like me, you may not have gone to the
                      > same bars . . .

                      True, the "Christ" part of the faith has only been around since Jesus
                      walked the Earth. However, the Jewissh roots go back much, much further.


                      > I am not familiar w/ theories of shorter term variability other then
                      the
                      > one related to the sun's EMF.
                      >
                      > However, Sagan's famous essay discussion centers around an early,
                      cooler
                      > sun over huge timescales. As you may know, that was Sagan's field.
                      > Anyway, he talked about how on billion year timescales the sun was 25%
                      > less lumenous. The future faces a similar problem even before the red
                      > giant phase.
                      >
                      > What you are saying about variability only ADDS to my point. Namely
                      that
                      > a chaotic system is inconsistant with our sun's behavior if climate is
                      > steady as it is. IOW, you have changing input into a chaotic system it
                      > is going to be even MORE crazy everywhere, when indeed there are
                      tropical
                      > places, cold places and so forth. Modulation of chaotic inputs makes
                      > much more sense if what we are discovering is MORE varied input. It
                      > makes the modulation that much more critical.

                      Climate may be relatively steady now, but history has shown it has
                      been subject to some very wide variations. Antarctica was once a
                      forest! One need only go back a few thousand years to fine 1/3 of the
                      globe covered with ice. It wouldn't surprise me that the sun may have
                      been significantly less luminous in its early life.
                      >
                      > > <BR>
                      > > > For instance, recently a microbe was <BR>
                      > > > discovered that consumes (crude) oil and converts it to
                      electrons.
                      > > <BR>
                      > > <BR>
                      > > Converts it to electrons???  I don't think you meant that the way
                      > > it<BR>
                      > > came across!<BR>
                      >
                      >
                      > I do need to re-look up this one. The notion I gather was that
                      > collectively these microbes acted like biological fuel cells. I will
                      > look this one up again.

                      Ahhh, now that makes more sense! What you're saying is that the
                      chemical reaction that the bacteria use to digest the oil generares an
                      electrical current. Now that I could believe.


                      > Bin Laden's and Husein's of the world exist but they do not have the
                      > ability to hurt so many people. Bush scares me way more then these
                      two.
                      > And BTW, I was active in the military during desert 'shield', but I was
                      > lucky to be inactivated as a reserve during the 'storm' part of it. In
                      > my view Bush is wagging the dog bigtime and this is all about oil.
                      >

                      Allright, I'll give you that. It MAY be at least partly about oil.
                      The fact is that our nation is very dependent upon oil, be it right or
                      wrong. Our economy, and many, many jobs, depend upon the free flow of
                      oil. Take that away, and our nation is in big trouble.


                      > The dam has holes in it for the mud, but this does not address how sed
                      > and flow will alter the biological conditions in the oceans . . .

                      The problem, however, is that much of the silt will begin to settle
                      out far upstream from the dam, and never make it down that far. The
                      top end of the resevoir could become comepletely choked off with it if
                      it isn't removed somehow.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.