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

Re: SOI strongly NEG for first time in awhile

Expand Messages
  • David
    Hey Mike! I ve been thinking about you. How s your grandfather? Is everybody doing ok?
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 27, 2002
      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 2 of 11 , Nov 27, 2002
        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 3 of 11 , Nov 28, 2002
          --- 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 4 of 11 , Nov 28, 2002
            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 5 of 11 , Nov 30, 2002
              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 6 of 11 , Dec 3, 2002
                --- 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 7 of 11 , Dec 3, 2002
                  > <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 8 of 11 , Dec 4, 2002
                    > 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.