More cosmic ray stuff
- View Sourcehttp://www.debunkers.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000670.html
Jeff Norman there writes:
"[moderator] All discussions of what exactly M-H level 1 may be
carried on elsewhere outside of this forum. [/moderator] "
This is a direct reference to me, Mike Doran--the M denoting Mike. I
was booted off this site for calling these extremists for what they are--
contrary corporate state opinions are selectively tolerated. The
discussion there in this thread is typical. And while Tom Rees is the
current object of slander with comments like six month honeymoons,
and he responds truly:
"My, we have all had a jolly old time with the character
assassination here, haven't we! Nothing better than getting round
for a big group hug and reassuring yourselves that those who disturb
your cloistered world view are stupid, egregious, and probably mad. "
He, and to a lessor extent Ryan Atwater, who posted 06-25-2003 09:14
PM, are going to be the object of my comments. I have no faith in
the majority of posters there, particularly Norman, who is an
intellectual coward and works for a power company, with little
motive in his writing other than propaganda.
I have posted here and there and everywhere that the so called
warmers and skeptics have continually fought each other's straw men,
and have horribly failed in defining the biological and electrical
processes that force climate, and how human activity creates defects
in the biological feedback loops involved.
On Atwater's post, the sattilite data is nicely showing a modulating
variance. This is NOT showing a periodic function, nor is it a
chaotic one. Modulation is the only kind of feedback system that
would cause this kind of oscillation. ENSO, according to core data
from Equador going back 15,000 years, has only been stabile the past
5,000 years. During this time, the cycle varies about every 2 to 7
years. Again, not purely periodic. Not chaotic, either. Something
must drive this back and forth, and so far, nothing reasonable has
been shown. BUT, because upwelling increases the potential for
biological activity, upwelling then has significant UNCOUPLED (no
tie between cloud behavior and sea surface temperatures) electrical
meaning, as the biosphere contains chemistries and does not diffuse
them as lifeless chemistry would. This THEN is your driving force
for the reversal. This is your modulation, so expressed the past
5,000 years in the ENSO oscillation. This is not chaos was, chaos
is, burn fossil fuels, but modulation was, mudulation is, protect
living earth processes and protect the earth's ability to feedback
When you have 500 year El Ninos, particularly following Mt Pinatubo
and the SST cooling that would go with it, upwelling form the
cooling of the early 1990s is followed by a biological bloom and EMF
conductivies that support anomaly events. Where CO2 enters is that
it is both a bio mass increasing agent--to these bio conductivity
cycles AND it directly increases conductivities by gas carbonic acid
electron exchanges in wind swept oceans, thereby altering the cloud
dynamics. As cloud dynamics comprise the key forcing, NOT CO2 as a
green house gas, what we are left with is global fever, and YES it
IS an illness--a defect in a bio feedback loop. 500 year El Ninos
and warmest 10 years in a 1,000 speak to this fever.
Now, to Rees. Rees claims that demolishes the argument of one Ronain-
-who posts Dr. Peter T. Doran's Home Page in this thread:
Dr. Doran is no relation--unless you may go back hundreds of years
to Ireland. But Dr. Doran's data is interesting because it UNCOUPLES
warming deeper ocean temparatures in the Southern Ocean and warming
surface and SSTs near where B-21 and 22 melted and broke off with
anomaly COOLING in Anarctica. BUT, what is significant is that this
uncoupling IS consistant with direction of ocean current, and the
fact that the warmer a conducter in the oceans, the better it
inducts AGAINST cirrus--and hence by ocean current direction there
are anomalies going the other way, against a thermal coupling. This
is yet another way of stating the Lindzen problem, which again, is
good data but fails to understand the ELECTRICAL behavior of clouds
and specifically the inducting direction of current of the North and
South Equatorials compared to the Equatorial.
The comments by Tom Rees hardly equates to destruction. Indeed, it
is more straw bashing ignorance--about a living earth.
BTW, I have emailed Dr. Doran--no response. Dr. Doran has no EMF or
bio training. Tom Rees is a biologist with no EMF training.
Rees has posted here but refused to engage. I think, that while he
claims to be one who relies on the evidence, is actually much more
comfortable with reassuring himself that those who disturb his
cloistered world view are stupid, egregious, and probably mad--and
therefore totes the warmer talking points pretty much line by line.
Stupidly, he has effect right, and cause wrong, and in in so erring,
does more harm than good.
Rees also mentions this Alaska melting thread. Again, without an EMF
or bio training, one cannot appreciate what PDO IS, or what
directions of current mean as in the Alaska current for induction,
in the context of a warming ocean, to temperature anomalies. Parts
of Alaska can warm, and others cool, even as oceans warm, just by
the relative current direction meaning on the EMF behavior toward
clouds. Herein, Bomber Dave's comments ARE appropriate--that there
has been a failure to couple CO2 as a green house gas with the
behaviors described. But that failure cuts both ways, with Bomber
Dave's insisting, wrongly, that the burden of proof should be on the
warmer's to make that causal connnection. In the legal profession,
once a lower threshhold is met that shows that there is a problem,
the burden SHIFTS. That is, as global fever has been WELL
articulated emperically, I think that the true skeptic has the
burden going the other way. In this case, however, as EMFs DO couple
cloud behaviors, and there is more and more evidence of this, such
as w/ cosmic ray flux studies and the like, that the higher burdens
of proof have been met.
Rees takes issue a view here acticulated by some here (solarists) in
published article about solar raditive flux. The problem is, again,
the study fails to look at solar electrical output and the signal
noise issue of cloud formation dynamics associated with isobars of
the earth EMF and low convection against the high convection and
high current from charge separations in the tropical regions. In
short, the pure thermal coupling fails. Indeed, if this coupling
existed, every time there was a CME (coronal mass ejection) or a
solar flare, there would be storms everywhere globally. But that
isn't the case. Nor is it the case, for instance, that El Nino peaks
at solar peak--it does not. This is so because the electrical and
thermal variables are tied to uncoupled electrical behaviors--that
in the end the biosphere modulates.
Citing this link:
This started another thread Rees discussed. About halfway down the
page is a picture of SST and wind anomalies of the so called PDO.
What is really interesting is how the wind direction in the North
Pacific neatly COUPLES with the SSTs--again consistant with an
induction potential and cloud behavior, and then resulting heat
retained and oceans warmed.
Here Rees actually says something articulate well respecting the
burden of proof on the issue of climate resting with the "warmers":
"I strongly disagree. To say that presupposes that I'm the only one
proposing an intervention. But you are also proposing an
intervention - you're proposing the release of a colossal amount of
GHG into the atmosphere. Therefore, it's equally valid for me to say
that the burden of proof lies with you!
However, I do not think that the burden of proof lies with either of
us - and not just because proof is not obtainable at this stage.
Rather, we need to recognise that there are a whole range of options
open to us, and that each of these options is associated with a
cost/benefit, which in turn depends on the risks of outcomes
associated with each option, and the hazard they confer.
Therefore, we need to work out, as far as possible, the risk and
hazard associated with each option. We will never have certainty.
But whether we will have warming or not does not depend upon our
level of knowledge. Just because the future is uncertain, doesn't
mean the risk of fossil fuel emission is lower. In fact, it means
that the risk is higher. "
Strangely, 'uncertainty' is a chaos idiot term--one that a biologist
should be more in tune against.