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

STT links. Latest sat shows El Nino 1, 2 now nuetral, 3 and 4 fading

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran <mike@usinter.net>
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/SST_INDEX.gif http://weather.unisys.com/archive/sst/sst_anom_loop.gif http://www.fnoc.navy.mil/products/OTIS/US058VMET-
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
    • David <b1blancer1@earthlink.net>
      Mike, take a look at these. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/west_antarctic/tchga1.gif
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike, take a look at these.

        http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/west_antarctic/tchga1.gif
        http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/west_antarctic/tchgb1.gif

        As you can see, the earth is now cooler than it was a mere 5000 years
        ago, and substantially cooler than it was 100,000 years ago. In fact,
        we are just now really recovering from the last ice age. If the
        temperature estimates on those graphs are correct, then the earth
        undergoes a significant warm-up about every 100,000 years, and we're
        due for one now. The pattern seems to hold quite well for the last
        400,000 years or so. As can also be seen, when the warm-up occurs, it
        does so quite suddenly, as does the cool-down that follows several
        thousand years later.

        I believe that the Earth is indeed warming, and that it's doing so
        right on schedule. Modern man, and by modern I mean within the last
        10,000 years, has actually only been around for what is a relatively
        cool period in Earth's climate history. We haven't seen a warm period,
        which is what we're headed for now. For that matter, the polar ice
        caps are only a relatively recent feature. There have been times when
        they didn't exist.

        Your thoughts Mike? Anybody?
      • fredwx1 <fredwx1@yahoo.com>
        I meant to ask about burning hydrogen itself instead of hydrocarbon compounds like methane. ... stability ... siesmic ... under ... connected ... to ...
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 14, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I meant to ask about burning hydrogen itself instead of hydrocarbon
          compounds like methane.


          --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Doran <mike@u...>"
          <mike@u...> wrote:
          > --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "fredwx1 <fredwx1@y...>"
          > <fredwx1@y...> wrote:
          > > <By blind luck, this happens to cause a steady state of the Gaia
          > > microbrial feedbacks that bring siesmic and hydrological
          stability
          > to
          > > a region. > How does this effect siesmic activity?
          >
          > Simply because hydrates are less dense then ocean water--but are
          > compositied with the sediments and cemented to the base rock. If
          > there is MH instability it unforms and the methane is dissolved in
          > the ocean water and the water is free to flow upwards--and the
          > sediments free to move down. This impacts the DENSITY of a given
          > strata and like a tube of toothpaste getting squeezed impacts
          siesmic
          > zones--such as the one here in the NW as the ocean plate slips
          under
          > the land plate and sediments are scrapped off to form the coastal
          > mountains. There is further genetic proof the the causal link--in
          > that sulfur loving archae, although not as closely related as the
          > methanogens and salt loving archae are, remain genetically
          connected
          > to the other two archae--over huge timescales. This is improbable
          > without the symbiotic connection of siesmic activity because the
          > source of sulfur is tectonic!
          >
          > >
          > > Secondly, In an effort to reduce CO2 emmisions, how might a move
          to
          > > hydrogen based fuels effect Gaia?
          >
          > If methane is burned there is less carbon per energy unit. Indeed
          > the move by the biosphere itself to methane probably has some
          > evolutionary logic in the same way--due to how CO2 changes
          > conductivity as much as it does when concentrated. But on a more
          > serious note the use of hydrates would have a profound EMF/Gaia
          > implication--like stripping the insulation off of a wire on the
          > ground. However, as we learn these mechanisms and the chaotic
          > stimulas involved--that might be the desired impact. Much to learn
          > here!
          >
          > This is why this is one of coolest discussion groups on the web!
          >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Doran
          <mike@u...>"
          > > <mike@u...> wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
          http://www.weather.com/newscenter/topstories/030109globalwarmingpropos
          > > > al.html
          > > >
          > > > Lawmakers tackle Global Warming
          > > > Thu, Jan. 09, 2003 9:13 AM ET
          > > >
          > > > By the Associated Press
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > WASHINGTON (AP) A new bill aimed at combatting global warming
          is
          > an
          > > > important step forward for the Pacific Northwest, Democratic
          > > > lawmakers say.
          > > >
          > > > Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn.,
          > have
          > > > proposed requiring a huge swath of U.S. industry to cut
          emissions
          > > of
          > > > carbon dioxide and other warming gases back to 2000 levels by
          > 2010,
          > > > and to 1990 levels by 2016.
          > > >
          > > > Their bill would affect power plants, manufacturers, petroleum
          > > > refiners and other large-scale commercial sources, and set up a
          > > > trading system similar to one created to fight acid rain.
          > > >
          > > > Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., on Wednesday called the bill "a
          > > commonsense
          > > > and economically viable way to reduce the downside of global
          > > > warming."
          > > >
          > > > Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., called it the best environmental
          > news
          > > > of the new year.
          > > >
          > > > But the proposal faces strong opposition from the Bush
          > > administration
          > > > and Republican leaders in the Senate.
          > > >
          > > > Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the new chairman of the Senate
          > > > Environment Committee, has no interest in the McCain-Lieberman
          > > bill,
          > > > said Inhofe's spokesman, Gary Hoitsma.
          > > >
          > > > "We're going to be more supportive of the Bush administration's
          > > > approach to this issue, which is not to move toward a mandatory
          > > > regulatory regime," Hoitsma said. "I can't see the
          committee ...
          > > > moving a bill that the president's not going to sign."
          > > >
          > > > Environmental groups praised Lieberman and McCain for helping
          > jump-
          > > > start the debate over global climate change.
          > > >
          > > > Many scientists believe that the burning of fossil fuels is
          > causing
          > > > an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, triggering what is
          > > called
          > > > the greenhouse effect. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide
          > in
          > > > the atmosphere would trap more of the sun's heat, possibly
          > causing
          > > > temperatures to rise.
          > > >
          > > > Inslee, who has called for a national commitment to develop
          clean
          > > > energy similar to the 1960s effort to explore space, called the
          > new
          > > > proposal important substantively and symbolically. By
          introducing
          > > it
          > > > the week Congress convened, the two senators showed the
          > importance
          > > of
          > > > climate change, he said.
          > > >
          > > > The bill itself "is a very important step forward for the
          Pacific
          > > > Northwest, because we have some very acute problems that we are
          > > > likely to face if we don't come to grips and take some positive
          > > steps
          > > > here in Congress," Inslee said.
          > > >
          > > > Eastern Washington irrigated farms, for instance, could be at
          > risk
          > > in
          > > > coming years because of a potential reduction in winter
          snowpack
          > as
          > > a
          > > > result of global warming, Inslee said. With less snow, there's
          > also
          > > a
          > > > risk that the entire Columbia River system will have to be
          > greatly
          > > > expanded to keep pace with the region's demand for
          hydroelectric
          > > > power, he said.
          > > >
          > > > "Snowpack is like a giant electric battery," Inslee
          > said. "Without
          > > it
          > > > it's harder to capture precipitation and you have reduced
          > electric
          > > > capacity."
          > > >
          > > > Blumenauer, who attended the World Summit on Sustainable
          > > Development
          > > > last year in South Africa, said the Northwest has already seen
          > some
          > > > extreme weather patterns that are bound to get worse.
          > > >
          > > > "From an Oregonian/Northwest perspective, I think this is
          really
          > > > good, because we have a lot at risk in the Northwest," he said.
          > > >
          > > > From a political perspective, the bill shows a refreshing
          > > willingness
          > > > to take on the administration, Blumenauer and Inslee said.
          > > >
          > > > "This is a good signal to start the new session: a bipartisan
          > > > interest in some meaningful environmental legislation,"
          > Blumenauer
          > > > said. "We haven't had a lot of good news in the last year
          > relative
          > > to
          > > > the environment."
          > > >
          > > > But a spokeswoman for a conservative think tank that opposes
          the
          > > bill
          > > > said the legislation would harm the economy and kill jobs.
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > ++++++++++++++++++
          > > >
          > > > COMMENTS:
          > > >
          > > > I have a number of comments on the above article.
          > > >
          > > > First, from an apolitical standpoint, missing EMFs and Gaia is
          > > > occurring by Dems and Repubs alike. The political blowback is
          > > mixing
          > > > up impacted areas by those not. IOW, the Mississippi delta is
          > Gaia
          > > > overactive right now so states like Oklahoma are not feeling
          the
          > > bite-
          > > > -whereas post Three Gorge diversion and Colorado delta/GOC/Sea
          of
          > > > Cortez Gaia death conditions have resulted in ultra poor Gaia
          > > > conditions in the states where those sponsering the law reside.
          > The
          > > > NE relative to Lieberman has been impacted through its
          hydrology
          > w/
          > > > drought, too--but there the dams on the Orinoco, Amazon, and W.
          > > > Africa are tied as well as what an over active GOM causes.
          > > >
          > > > Meanwhile, Gale Norton is tatamount to complete mental
          > retardation
          > > on
          > > > the river/dam issues. The most recent ploy is to move Colorado
          > > river
          > > > allocations to San Diego--where lots of Republicans reside.
          This
          > > kind
          > > > of political gerrymandering is absolutely blind to how the
          > > hydrology
          > > > works with the biosphere--and the best approach to date in this
          > > > respect is CalFed--which has an administrative approach which
          > > allots
          > > > flow to the eustories of the delta--to protect the "ducks" and
          > > other
          > > > aspects of the ecology of the delta. By blind luck, this
          happens
          > to
          > > > cause a steady state of the Gaia microbrial feedbacks that
          bring
          > > > siesmic and hydrological stability to a region.
        • Mike Doran <mike@usinter.net>
          The LIA is a Keeling Whorf tidal movement that unforms MHs, IMHO. That is a 1900 year cycle and we are mid range in that. There may be some gamma ray issues
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 18, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            The LIA is a Keeling Whorf tidal movement that unforms MHs, IMHO.
            That is a 1900 year cycle and we are mid range in that.

            There may be some gamma ray issues that impact the water vapor cycle.

            The question isn't these oscillations but the biosphere's modulation
            of those random inputs.

            IOW it isn't chaos then chaos now but modulation then modulation now--
            the question you ask is fair but not correct.

            Human changes can result in temperatures that are in line with life
            but then a body can be dead but situated in a room temperature that
            is 98.7 degrees F. and appear alive. Such is the Dust Bowl, the
            fires in Colorado and Arizona, the drought in the SW during an "El
            Nino" and so forth.

            --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David <b1blancer1@e...>"
            <b1blancer1@e...> wrote:
            > Mike, take a look at these.
            >
            > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/west_antarctic/tchga1.gif
            > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/west_antarctic/tchgb1.gif
            >
            > As you can see, the earth is now cooler than it was a mere 5000
            years
            > ago, and substantially cooler than it was 100,000 years ago. In
            fact,
            > we are just now really recovering from the last ice age. If the
            > temperature estimates on those graphs are correct, then the earth
            > undergoes a significant warm-up about every 100,000 years, and we're
            > due for one now. The pattern seems to hold quite well for the last
            > 400,000 years or so. As can also be seen, when the warm-up occurs,
            it
            > does so quite suddenly, as does the cool-down that follows several
            > thousand years later.
            >
            > I believe that the Earth is indeed warming, and that it's doing so
            > right on schedule. Modern man, and by modern I mean within the last
            > 10,000 years, has actually only been around for what is a relatively
            > cool period in Earth's climate history. We haven't seen a warm
            period,
            > which is what we're headed for now. For that matter, the polar ice
            > caps are only a relatively recent feature. There have been times
            when
            > they didn't exist.
            >
            > Your thoughts Mike? Anybody?
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.