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

Re: The sun, the climate, El Nino, and stuff

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    The corporative state is disfunctional, because the human element is the only thing that can rise above and problem solve collectively. The corporative state
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The corporative state is disfunctional, because the human element is
      the only thing that can rise above and problem solve collectively.
      The corporative state is too self serving an organization of society
      to ever solve a collective problem that is not having to do with
      short term profits and materialism.

      A good example from my narrow interest on climate on this is the ASU
      climatology head. Arizona State has a new wing to its climatology
      department added. Not long after, the climatology department chair
      was a so-called skeptic.

      Like the rest of the skeptics, ASU's head of climatology has no
      electrical or biological sciences background. This feature of buying
      the debate is not just limited to the global warming debate, extends
      to the whole spectrum of political and intellectual discourse that
      occurs in this country and more and more, around the world.

      One of the more common talking points put out by the fascists is that
      the wealth that the corporative state creates will overcome
      ecological problems (disasters).

      But in point of fact, instead of problem solving with that wealth,
      the ASU example is quite the other direction. It is unsolving the
      problem, going so far as to institutionalize a rationalization for
      subsidies that actually are an economic disaster to go along with an
      ecological one. Hubbert's peak looms, and the economic consequences
      of subsidy toward the structure of the society in the face of a very
      limited resource is economic suicide over time. The corporate state
      could care less--it isn't into "planning", but the bottom line of
      each entity involved.

      Currently, this is being achieved politically by transfers of wealth
      that are occurring between high density and low density regions, and
      the power base situated in the low density areas. But the subsidies
      are becoming less and less effective at creating this wealth

      The science and politics is about to get ugly.


      Where should the climate debate actually go? I myself am interested
      in combated the latest talking points of the fascists, which
      essentially goes like this. The sun causes climate change all by
      itself. Climate is chaotic and beyond human control. Therefore,
      support massive wealth transfers and subsidies toward low density
      growth and a fossil fuel economy. It is part of a corporative state
      propaganda that also has hurdles on the economy side of the house,
      with problems like Hubbert's peak looming.

      Leading the fascist talking points is an internet OZ man, John Daly.
      Right now the only climate theory Daly pushes on his own (as opposed
      to propaganda like critical commentary of other people's work) is by
      Dr. Theodor Landscheidt. This is some of the statistics behind the
      propaganda. As it has been said, there are lies, [expletive] lies,
      and statistics.

      Here is a drought paper based on the solar forcing espounsed by Dr.


      Dr. Landscheidt writes in conclusion:

      "Anyway, the correct forecast of the U.S. drought beginning in 1999
      and a dozen of further successful climate forecasts, exclusively
      based on solar activity, show already now that the IPCC's claim that
      there has only been a negligible solar effect on climate change in
      recent decades is not tenable. Ironically, just drought, the
      greatest threat attributed to alleged man-made global warming, has
      turned out to be regulated by variations in the sun's eruptional

      And another Dr. Landscheidt paper entitled La on Decadal-Scale
      Variations in El-Niño Intensity located here:


      Dr. Landscheidt writes in conclusion:

      "Contrary to the vague "storylines" the IPCC publicizes to speculate
      about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C by 2100, the forecast
      presented here is based on data covering half a millenium. There is a
      theoretical background, but the forecast does not rely on it. The
      reliability of the involved solar motion cycles has been checked by
      13 well-documented long-range forecasts of diverse climate phenomena
      that turned out correct without exception (Landscheidt, 1983-2003).

      Pertinently, this includes the last three El Niños. I have been told
      by IPCC adherents that there is nothing special about correctly
      forecasting El Niño events. They cited the report of Kerr (1998) in
      Science entitled "Models win big in forecasting El Niño." Landsea and
      Knaff (2000), who employed a statistical tool to evaluate the skill
      of twelve state-of-the-art climate models in real-time predictions of
      the development of the 1997-1998 El Niño, found however that the
      models exhibited essentially no skill in forecasting the event at
      lead times ranging from 0 to 8 months. It should be noted that my
      last rather precise El Niño forecast, exclusively based on solar
      activity, was made more than three years before the event
      (Landscheidt, 2002).

      When dealing with an utterly complex system like climate, there is no
      other way to check hypotheses than by non-trivial forecast
      experiments. So this further long-range climate forecast solely based
      on solar activity may serve as a touchstone of the IPCC's claim that
      since 1950 or at least in recent decades the Sun's variable activity
      has practically had no effect on climate change. "


      On the drought in the U.S.--he claims this matches, but in point of
      fact the drought in, say, Florida effectively ended in 2002 and the
      one in the SW is just ending now. Nothing in the regional impacts
      can be addressed by the statistics sited because it is of the whole
      U.S. I would agree that the sun w/ its radiative and electrical
      aspects does have a cycle that inputs into the cloud forcing, what is
      not described is how the modulation of the system by the biosphere
      interplays with this input. Thus, the 500 year El Nino in 1998
      brought huge amounts of rain to Southern California yet the
      one "predicted" by Landscheidt brought Landscheidt ended the drought
      in Florida but did not end the drought in the SW. Why? How does the
      Dust Bowl and the Colorado, Mississippi, and Rio changes correlate--
      what does the microbial biosphere's health have to do with
      conductivity if the issue is the signal from the sun that creates
      cloud behaviors? Again, the correlative studies don't get to cause
      of modulation, which are biological and electrical. The very fact
      that a signal is even recognizable as an input depends on this
      variabel resistance, impedance. This is where human activity causes
      change--in the modulation side. Recently, CAP and the specific
      REGIONAL drought in the SW are contrary to both the prediction of
      drought and the ENSO forecast but is consistant with reduction in the
      biosphere that results in conductivity decreases in the Gulf of
      California, and hence poor conductivity of electrical ion waves to
      bring convection to the SW.

      A global look is dangerous when Gaia modulations, chemical and
      temperature, are LOCAL. A year or so ago, Ben Cash of Princeton and
      I discussed this very issue online, and here on this group our
      discussion can be found with a search of his name, and he had his
      butt handed to him pretty much over the same issue of local
      limitations of modeling. His own complex models, much like
      Landschiedt's, could not describe local changes. Likewise, inputs to
      climate can have grand impact but at the end of the day it is the
      local modulations that create chemistry modulations. If an area is
      gaia healthy from a chemical standpoint, rain fed back will wash that
      chemistry to the oceans and maintain its living chemistry range.
      Likewise, local temperature feedbacks determine upwelling by SST
      stratification and hence nutrient levels--that is the essence of
      ENSO. ENSO is a biological flip of conductivities brought about by
      upwelling and nutrients. This is how an essentially uncoupled SST
      (thermal energy of ocean surface) to cloud behavior reverses itself.
      Upwelling is cold, but biologically helpful--hence the paradox is
      described. It is electrically described as well, as colder
      conditions of salt water are more resistive, or offer more impedance
      to large scale low frequancy ion movments, or electrical alternating

      Landscheidt's ideas fail to include what the luner cycle does to the
      LIA. It fails to include the recent Dane research on cosmic rays, or
      corralations of Milankovitch to climate. But electrical/thermal
      conditions do give a good picture. Cosmic rays are electrical in
      impact and Milankovitch will alter the signal noise ratios of the
      solar ion input gathered by the earth magnetic poles in relation to
      the convection brought about charge separations, in addition to
      changing solar insOlation. Finally, the LIA and the luner
      correlations are interesting because the moon's gravity wave stirs
      the oceans and alters local conductivities in so stirring. This
      stirring directly impacts cloud behaviors and cummulatively, with the
      pattern of the luner orbit, alters climate. Keeling and Whorf have
      associated luner patterns with the Little Ice Age cycle.

      Finally, the fundimental flaw in the Dr. Landschiedt approach can be
      understood by a mystery presented by Carl Sagan. In his paper on the
      sun, he queried about how the sun was about 25% more lumenous on
      longer timescales. The problem, it is framed, is how a more lumeous
      sun did not boil the oceans, or why the earth wasn't an ice block in
      the past. The answer is biological, in that the signal from the sun
      is a highly modulated one by the biosphere. In the past, biological
      conductivities would have had to be more intense to capture the solar
      activity's electrical and radiative outputs. The Eocine's lack of
      microbial activity with its warming is a more recent example of the
      same issue going the other way.

      So, as Dr. Landschiedt frames and concludes about the problem, it is
      yet another strawman. That is because the problem is modulation
      then, modulation now, don't add huge quantities of a biological
      forcing that had been sequestered out of the biosphere because you
      create defects in BIOLOGICAL feedback loops. Just like our bodies,
      when we are hot we sweat, cold we shiver. When we are sick, he have
      chills and fever. But as our fever rises to 108 degrees F. and
      above, our organs fail, and soon the modulation ends, and we become
      the temperature of our surroundings. That temperature could be that
      of the ice block of Mars or the gas ball of Venus! By looking only at
      the system as closed and physical, scientists like Dr. Landschiedt,
      uneducated in EMFs or biological systems, do this debate far more
      harm than good. But sadly, it is a problem that has existed
      throughout this debate . . .
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.