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

Revisting Ben Cash and my discussion on monsoons, coupling GCMs.

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    About a year and a half ago I had a conversation over at NYTs w/ Ben Cash, who is a Princeton climatologist. I debated with him that he couldn t even describe
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 8, 2003
      About a year and a half ago I had a conversation over at NYTs w/ Ben
      Cash, who is a Princeton climatologist. I debated with him that he
      couldn't even describe how the monsoon worked without considering the
      electrical and biological implications of cirrus movements. His
      response was that my land based EMF picture was not there and that I
      ascribed too much too EMFs. Anyway, I have, since speaking with him,
      refined my ideas, like I would add to ocean implications of direction
      of current changes to induction that the mere stirring or turbulance
      in the ocean will momentarily impact conductivity because of the
      dissolving and disassociation of CO2 frees electrons, AND that Doran
      waves cause electrical activity changed in the ocean to impact on
      shore via the ionospheric current movements, the cirrus behavior
      nearby on the land. But even a year and a half ago, I absolutely
      trashed his paper, which had a GCM and could not couple ocean and
      cloud behaviors, nor put together how local behaviors interacted
      globally. Intestingly, coupling problems is PREDICTED due to EMFs,
      because direction of current matters more than the temperature of the
      ocean surfaces, due to the fact that while warmer waters are more
      conductive, that conductivity ends up being used in an induction
      AGAINST cirrus production. Further, biological changes from upwelling
      of cold, unconductive waters may increase biological activity via
      nutrients that come with the upwelling, thereby INCREASING
      conductivity. Such are the local hydrological cycles biologically fed
      back . . . or not. Hence the models flaws.

      Here is a summary of the discussion with Ben and I:


      Part of my complaint isn't w/ the masses, who must be led by the
      intellectual community. My complaint is with the intellectual
      community, with scholars like Ben, who has no EMF or bio training,
      and cannot even get it when I explain it to them.

      The failure to couple models is very strong evidence of EMFs and
      biological modulation. Eg the Lindzen paper. But even with their
      knowledge of lacking coupling mechanism and the deterministic
      behavior of "climate", they fail to understand. No. It isn't the
      masses, it is the reductive scientific community, that is blinded by
      lines of sight.

      Take a basic climate phenomenon like the NAO, or North Atlantic
      Oscillation. I think that NAO is an ELECTRICAL and BIOLOGICAL pattern
      having to do w/ SSTs (the warmer the ocean, the better it conducts),
      upwelling of nutrients from the deep which start biological activity
      (accumulations of algae, for instance, will have a MUCH different
      conductivity in the thermohaline than the same chemical conditions if
      allowed to diffuse to the less conductive colder waters underneath,
      as relative to the clouds above the oceans), and wind direction
      coupled with these ocean conditions (a wind blowing from west to east
      inducts against cirrus, a wind blowing from east to west inducts for
      cirrus--with surface lows drawing in via coriolis forces a cold wind
      that bites along the surface and causes a surface wind that inducts
      FOR cirrus). Putting these together in the context of the proximaty
      of the earth north EMF pole (over Hudson Bay) and you have the
      conditions of a bi-stable system. The rain occurs along the coast
      because of Doran waves. That is, with electrical conditions favorable
      for precip just off shore, a large scale low frequancy ion wave moves
      inland, and with hydrology enhanced, also feeds back biological
      conditions of still more favorable EMF conditions for this
      enhancement. The result is with ambiant winds more rain occurs to the

      Now, the very fact that I have to explain the mechanism of the NAO,
      its EMF and biological meaning, shows you the horrid state of the
      sciences and the ignorance and myopia of the reductive way in a
      fascist society, where climatology is funded by big oil. It is a dark
      ages of sorts. Thank God, the real one, not the heritical one
      preached by RWNs, that loves truth and humanity, because the internet
      is a POWERFUL conveyor of truth. Truth has a way all its own--and so
      does humanity, which punishes evil, real evil, the kind that HURTS
      people. Sticks real love and concern's head in the sand. I curse them
      and their ignorance and paraniod views. God does not want us to be
      stupid. Yes, we are human--and to be human is not to be machines or
      calculaters. We worship, we notice. I am okay with that, okay that I
      have a passion in discussing climate.

      Here is a traditional link to describe what NAO is in the context of
      this culture:


      But here is another link which cites the same researchers:


      The Climate Prediction Center that cites the same authors and papers
      in. I would bet the bank that EVERYONE of the researchers who are on
      his link COMPLETELY lack any EMF or bio training. The bank.

      Anyway, this is what the link says on page five, and I quote:

      "High resolution paleological climate records, as well as numerous
      model simulations suggest that global warming may reduce the
      merdional overturning circulation in the Atlantic (thermohaline
      circulation, THC). Some climate models even show complete shut-down
      of the THC if some critical threshholds are crossed. However, the
      range of possible responses for the next 100 years is rather large:
      the THC in some models remains almost constant, while most models
      exhibite a substantial reduciton of the meridional overtuning. This
      uncertainty is likely due to model differences in climate sensitivty,
      in the response of th ehydrological cycle, and in the representation
      of processes and feedbacks (e.g., NAO, ENSO). This indicates that the
      strength of the stabilizing and destablizing feedbacks influencing
      the THC is still largely unknown. Current research, therefore, must
      be concerned with a better understanding of the underlying
      processes. "

      It is an absolute travisty that EMFs and cirrus and the biological
      modulation of EMFs is not a central discussion in this research. And
      the statistical idiocy here is due to the fact that we are talking
      about a biological.

      modulation of chaotic stimulas. The patterns quantified are both
      biological and physical and allude common description by forcing.
      Travesty. And our better thinkers, of science or otherwise, are
      confused about correllation and cause, statics and causal dynamics.

      I AGREE these kind of cummulative blunders by the scientific
      community in general is a CULTURAL set of blunders, and our best only
      play . . . for the corporative state. Yeah, our great modern science.
      The link I produced says, the researchers don't know--there is NO
      EXPLAINATION state of the art. The problem is you can't what is
      called "couple" the behavior clouds to the melting ice, the
      thermohaline. And it is in clouds you have rain, heat, feedbacks. The
      infra red heat trapped under clouds is HUGE in comparision to the
      energy released, relatively speaking, from warm or cold waters of the
      oceans. And just because lay people don't get it isn't an excuse for
      those educated in these fields. But, again, the truth is that there
      are cultural and political pressures, that in this great age of
      science, has led to ignorance and stupidity.

      So, as it rains in the NE we blame it on the NAO--having no idea what
      that means.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.