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

Thanks for the paper BUT . . .

Expand Messages
  • mike
    It s just more silly Bal or is it sali bull . . . http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1999CfA...SSP.4862S I would start from the end of the paper,
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 6, 2003
      It's just more silly Bal or is it sali bull . . .


      I would start from the end of the paper, pages 31-32, first. There you
      can see what the study finds . . . see it, if you don't appreciate the
      statistics they conclude with it. Now, I would be MOST concerned in
      looking at the graph in the years 1978/79 and 1988/89 La Nina years, and,
      of course, the studies end foward, which would have been post El Nino,
      during the cycle's peak. As you know, temperature anomalies haven't been
      as bad as 1998 but the solar cycle was going through it's double peak, so
      the data is selective that way. Otherwise, it is an interesting study
      and SUPPORTS what I am saying about an internal modulating ELECTRICAL
      aspect of the biosphere. Look at it this way--where their data
      diverged. During La Nina the colder anomalies off the coast of Peru
      SUPPORTS life there--upwelling of bio rich nutrients cause the waters,
      while colder, to be paradoxically more conductive. That is because
      living chemistry is more conductive than the diffused chemistries.
      Therefore, the electro-magnetic dynamics that are at the heart of this
      paper's discussion become more important. And remember, this variable
      impedance is NOT coupled directly to the ocean surface temperature, BUT
      IS DEPENDANT ON THE DIRECTION OF CURRENT, where induction will cause
      relative cirrus cloud feedbacks. While this impact is most obvious
      globally during La Nina, climate cycles biologically EVERYWHERE. The
      authors here have no bio or significant "pattern" EMF training. And for
      a fact, Soon and Baliunas are politically motivated, with Baliunas
      speaking at Republican fundraisers and pushing fascist oil policies.
      Finally, and I don't quite get how this can be ignored, but CO2 IS
      electrically significant, and biologically significant, and the evidene
      continues to support global "fever", just not in the coupled way that
      these scientists, without bio or EMF training, consider.

      But here is what they admit from the paper itself:

      i A further difficulty in studying the sun-climate connection is the
      compleixty of the terrestrial response. One example is the possible,
      subtile sensitivity of the ocean radiant heating rates to changes in the
      color (energy distribution) of the Sun alone, even if the total iradiance
      were to remain constant. This mechanism works by way of spectral-
      selective scattering and absorbing media in the ocean (e.g.,
      phytoplankton/chlorphyll; Livinston 1994) or in the air (e.g., low-level
      clouds; Siegel, Wesberry, & Ohlmann 1999), although the effects are
      poorly quantified.

      . . .

      i The second study of cloud cover and charged particles used an
      independant set of data covering 1990-1995 . . . to extend the previous
      correlation in time (Menzel, Wylie, & Strabala 1997). However, Menzel et
      al. (1997) found that a good correlation exists only for cirrus cloud
      cover and neutron count.

      i Several of the major excursions in the MSU global temperature record
      that are not traced by the coronal hole area may be explained by other
      documented terrestrial colmatic anomalies. For example, large dynamical
      warmings of the El Nino events . . . The largest, unexplained mismatch
      between global tropospheric tempertues and the tow coronal hole cures is
      the alge cooling event persisting throughout the whole of 1989. The 1989
      tropospheric cooling may corresopnd to a large La Nina cooling episode of
      1988-1989 . . . clearly illustrats a complex interaction of the tropical
      ocean and the global atmosphere adn calls for continued, clous
      consideration of internal climatic factors . . .

      Pages 16-18. All good material--too much to type.

      Under concluding sections:

      i Baranyui et al (1998) inferred a complex pattern of surface temperature
      response under the assumptions of a direct influence by solar charged
      particles and the solar and terrestrial magnetic fields coupling schemie
      of Simon & Legrand (1992). They found evidendce not only for the opposit
      responses in the surface temperatues from solar particle events
      originating from from polar and equatorial regions, but also for regional
      resonses sensitive to the location relative to the terrestrial magnetic
      meridian lin. These patterns of response reverse when the polarity of
      the Sun switches.

      The last paragraph here is interesting to me, in that the biosphere has
      evolved a variable impedance/resistance to the electrical and magnetic
      flux--where poliarity of the flux isn't as important because the
      biosphere can deal with it either way by altering how it resists this
      flux. Again, warmer surface conditions like an El Nino will be, it is
      true, more conductive because the warmer salt water is, the better it
      will carry a current, BUT, warmer surface conditions stop nutrients from
      reaching the surface biosphere, and so, biologically speaking, chemical
      containment of more conductive surface chemistries is reduced.
    • David
      Hehehe, there s always a but, isn t there?! ;-) I must confess I haven t had a chance to read the paper yet. I just saw the abstract whole doing the
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 6, 2003
        Hehehe, there's always a "but," isn't there?! ;-)

        I must confess I haven't had a chance to read the paper yet. I just
        saw the abstract whole doing the coronal hole magnetic field line
        research and thought it sounded interesting. I'll read it this week.
        It's interesting to me, however, that you seem to be of the belief
        that a person speaking at a Republican fundraiser automatically brings
        their scientific objectivity into question. Do you say the same thing
        about scientists who speak at Democratic fundraisers? If not, why
        not? Couldn't a scientist be biased just as easily in one direction
        as the other? Also, are all scientists somehow supposed to be be
        completely apolitical? Does having a liberal or conservative
        political leaning automatically disqualify them from doing legitimate
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.