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

Solar Activity Report for 10/2/03

Expand Messages
  • David
    ** Aurora Watch In Effect ** The solar wind speed finally kicked up a bot in response to a coronal hole, although it still isn t very high. Nevertheless,
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 2, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      ** Aurora Watch In Effect **

      The solar wind speed finally kicked up a bot in response to a coronal
      hole, although it still isn't very high. Nevertheless, there's at
      least a small chance for some aurora in the higher latitudes, and an
      aurora watch is in effect. Sunspot region 464 finally produced an
      M-class flare on the 1st. Region 464 is now approaching the western
      limb of the solar disk, and will soon be out of view. Rotating into
      view, however, is sunspot region 471, which lookd like it may have the
      potential for producing an M-class flare. Expect the high solar wind
      speeds to last for about another 24 hours before tapering off.

      The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

      NOAA sunspot number : 75
      SFI : 125
      A index : 8
      K index : 3

      Solar wind speed : 476.7 km/sec
      Solar wind density : 4.3 protons/cc
      Solar wind pressure : 1.6 nPa

      IMF : 10.7 nT
      IMF Orientation : 4.4 nT North

      Conditions for the last 24 hours :
      No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

      Forecast for the next 24 hours :
      No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

      Solar activity forecast :
      Solar activity is expected to be low. There is a small chance for an
      M-class flare from Region 471.

      Geomagnetic activity forecast :
      The geomagnetic field is expected to be mostly quiet to unsettled with
      isolated active periods.

      Recent significant solar flare activity :
      01-Oct-2003 0451Z M1.4
    • mike
      Many different forms of life are dependent upon each other. Examples include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the yucca moth, many
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 2, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Many different forms of life are dependent upon each other. Examples
        include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the yucca
        moth, many parasites and their hosts, and pollen-bearing plants and the
        honeybee. Creationists argue that if one member of each interdependent
        group evolved first, the group would not have survived. Since all
        members of the group have survived, they must have come into existence at
        the same time, or in other words, were created.

        But looking at the honey bee, for instance, the selective pressure by a
        living earth is seen. Interestingly, a bee has nerve tissue and iron
        ions that enables the bee to feel electrical changes. It turns out that
        fair weather conditions are associated with positive voltages to ground
        and storms with strikes and large negative voltages to ground. The nerve
        tissue tells the bee, inside a humid hive, when to leave or not to
        forage, thereby avoiding rain. Yet there is a living earth efficiency
        that stems from this order of greenery without a nervious system and
        greenery with a symbiotic relationship with the bee, which has the
        ability to "think" and avoid inefficiencies, while the plant has the
        ability to make food from sunlight AND water (clouds bring a LACK of
        sunlight) but not think.

        The creating god here is actually a THIRD symbiotic relationship with the
        marine microbial biosphere which feeds back conductivities from the
        living chemistries washed down the greenery and bee feed hydrology. This
        conductivity change feeds back rain to a region, and hence impacts the
        biology of the greenery, and then impacts the ecology of the bees. So
        what really occurred is the insect and the flowering greenery evolved
        independently but began to feel the selective pressures of a living earth
        such that they found that a symbiotic relationship was more competitive
        in the context of living earth climate feedbacks.
      • David
        Why is it that you posting anti-Christian messages?
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 3, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Why is it that you posting anti-Christian messages?
        • Mike Doran
          ... Do you think it is fair for me to be critical of you? Of so, is it fair for you to defend your, say, typo, based on your faith? God knows I can t spell or
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 4, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David" <b1blancer1@e...>
            wrote:
            > Why is it that you['re] posting anti-Christian messages?

            Do you think it is fair for me to be critical of you? Of so, is it
            fair for you to defend your, say, typo, based on your faith? God
            knows I can't spell or put together a gramatically correct sentence
            twice in a row. Understand Jesus is okay by me, but I am not posting
            about Jesus. Rather, I post about ignorance express rather well, I
            might add, by Christains of a certain bent.

            With considerable research let me see if I can find the perspective
            for which I am critical and try to frame it well, and then show what
            it is that I am talking about and how it relates to this group
            discussing a physical/biological model of climate and weather. I
            will assume, perhaps with some arrogance, that what I am writing
            about is novel and groundbreaking and that there are a number of
            readers and posters here who hold a similar set of incorrect
            assumptions about what I am writing about (assuming there are more
            than just you and me posting here, David). Without further ado, to
            the heart of the matter.

            There is considerable controversy remaining in a debate about the
            origins of life. This controversy centers around a word--
            abiogenesis. Scientists tend to want to REDUCE the causes, the
            causal chain between chemistry that is lifeless and that which we
            think of as life. A large number of scholars, however, have a theory
            that there is a "Creator", and that life was begot by this creator.
            Some of these scholars argue that there was an intelligent design for
            early life, and others will say the earth is young and things just
            magically appeared, poof, the way they are, about 7,000 years ago.
            These are the so called young earthers.

            What the intelligent designer, hereinafter ("ID"), scholars say is
            that with respect to abiogenesis, or causes of the "first life", that
            it is improbable. The way this was described to me by my own mother,
            who is a creationist, reading from a book during a childhood family
            prayer meeting, was that the chance of a first life coming together
            randomly out of the soup of early earth chemistry was the same as a
            printing press blowing up and a fully unabridged dictionary coming
            out of the chaos. While I suppose that I define my own sexuality,
            philosophy, religion and politics around literacy, and
            metaphorically, then, the dictionary is sacred, what is actually
            expressed here, from what my own mother was reading, was a deeper
            scientific problem about complexity and the origin of life. Even 33
            years later, from when my mother read this to me, the problem is
            difficult.


            Today you can go to any number of debate forums and bbs where
            abiogenesis is discussed. There you will find arguements by IDs
            running always to the point about probabilities. They argue that if
            despite the virtually imposible oddes, proteins arose by chance
            processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe that they
            could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproduicng, metabolizeing,
            living cell. They argue that there is no evidence that there are any
            stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins
            and the formation of the first living cells. They argue that no
            scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this
            fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred--even if the entire
            universe had been filled with proteins.

            For instance, there is the problem that each amino acid was produced
            in conditions approximating nature bring in equal quantities of
            Dexterorotary (Right handed Molecules)and Laevorotary (Left handed)
            molecules where life is all left handed. The oft cited Miller
            experiment is criticized, too. The IDers claim Miller prepared an
            experiment to observe what complicated molecules' might be produced
            under Oparin-Haldane's proposed ideal pre-biotic atmosphere. They
            argue that in an assumed atmosphere that was DESIGNED,
            imitating "God", to produce amino acids, it was not at all surprising
            that amino acids formed.

            IDers complain that it is often presented that this Miller experiment
            demonstrates that amino acids, necessary for life, form naturally in
            a primitive atmosphere. IDers further complaint that it is usually
            asserted or implied that this Miller experiment demonstrates that
            abiogenesis is highly probable and that this further demonstrates
            that evolution (Darwinian) is indeed a fact. They conclude that the
            Miller experiment actually demonstrates the opposite; it revealed the
            overwhelming difficulties that exists with the view that life can
            form naturally from non-living chemicals.

            The key word above is 'controlled'. Intelligent control is what gets
            one the outcome they are looking for. Using a system of glass flasks,
            Steven Miller attempted to simulate Alexander Oparin's ideal
            atmospheric conditions. He passed a mixture of H2O, ammonia, methane
            and hydrogen through an electrical spark discharge. At the bottom of
            the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules made by the
            reaction. This trap prevented whatever chemicals formed from being
            destroyed by the energy source used to create them. Eventually,
            Miller was able to produce the above described mixture, containing
            the amino acids described above, the building blocks of proteins.

            IDers argue that to achieve his results, Miller had to use something
            that material evolutionists 'KNOW' did not exist in the pre-biotic
            earth, intelligence, and mental "know-how". He drew on decades of
            knowledge of organic chemistry in setting up his experiment. The
            proportions of the various gases used, the actual apparatus, the
            position of the electrodes, the intensity of the spark, and the
            chemical trap, were all carefully adjusted to create maximum yield
            from the experiment. IDers point out that many attempts by Stanley
            Miller failed to produce any amino acids or other building blocks of
            life. For instance, in an effort to make his Oparin atmosphere to
            mimic actual atmospheric conditions, Miller arranged for his
            electrical discharge to simulate lightning. After a week of these
            lightning type electrical discharges in the reaction chamber, the
            sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a
            cloudy red. The predominant product was a gummy black substance made
            up of billions of carbon atoms strung together in what was
            essentially tar, a common nuisance in organic reactions. The IDers
            will use Miller's own words, arguing that no amino acids used by
            living systems, or other building blocks of life, were produced on
            these first attempts, where Miller stated "An attempt was made to
            simulate lightning discharge by building up a large quantity of
            charge on a condenser until the spark jumped the gap between the
            electrodes. ... Very few organic compounds were produced and this
            discharge was not investigated further." from Robert
            Shapiro: "Origins, A Skeptics Guide ..." P. 103., 1986.

            IDers argue that only by constantly readjusting and fine tuning his
            apparatus and using a continuous electrical charge that Miller
            eventually obtained the amino acids indicated it above. They argue
            that even when using the same gas mixture and a continuous electrical
            discharge, Miller did not obtain any positive results until placing
            the apparatus in a different order. For instance, Shapiro, Ph.D.
            Chemistry, noted that with respect to the use of "Intelligence"
            and "Know How:" on the part of the experimenters to achieve the
            results they desire in "Origin of Life" type experiments:

            (P. 102-103)

            "another significant factor also influences the products being formed
            in an experiment of this type, but is less recognized, selection by
            the experimenter."

            "One clear message should emerge from this discussion. A variety of
            results may be possible from the same general type of experiment. The
            experimenter, by manipulating apparently unimportant variables, can
            affect the outcome profoundly. The data that he reports may be valid,
            but if only these results are communicated, a false impression may
            arise concerning the universality of the process. This situation was
            noticed by Creationist writer, Martin Lubenow, who commented: "I am
            convinced that in every origin of life experiment devised by
            evolutionists, the intelligence of the experimenter is involved in
            such a way as to prejudice the experiment.""

            Typically, IDers finish their improbability arguement by arguing that
            the tar from the Miller experiment tends to fix the amino acids so
            that they are not that free to bond, which must happen if theses
            amino acids are to form any kind of molecular structures leading to a
            replicating life form and that the amino acids formed were racemates.
            That is, each amino acid was produced in equal quantities of
            Dexterorotary (Right handed Molecules)
            and Laevorotary (Left handed) molecules, where all
            of life's proteins are made from left-handed amino acid chains, such
            that if just a single right handed amino acid molecule binds to a
            forming
            three dimensional chain of left handed amino acids, that right handed
            amino acid is lethal to the formation of the three dimensional
            chain. The IDers argue that all amino acids that form by natural
            causes alone are racemized. Even those found on comets are racemized.

            IDers will further argue that Oparin's ideal atmosphere of Methane,
            Ammonia, Hydrogen, and without Oxygen as used in the Miller
            experiment never existed! They point to evidence that the pre-biotic
            atmosphere had oxygen that is lethal to the formation of life's
            building blocks, and it had at best, traces of methane, ammonia, and
            hydrogen and naturally occurring ultra-violet let would have
            destroyed amino acids formed in the atmosphere, and the chemicals of
            the ocean would have destroyed life's building blocks that ended up
            there.

            With all due respect, IDers aren't just bible thumping right wing
            nuts.

            Nobel Prize laureate Harold C. Urey once stated:

            "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look
            into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.
            We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead
            matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it
            is hard for us to imagine that it did."

            Evolutionist A. Cairns-Smith, "Genetic Takeover and the Mineral
            Origins of Life" 1986. Points out that experiments like Miller-Urey
            demonstrate that critical prevital nucleic acids are highly
            implausible:

            "But so powerful has been the effect of Miller's experiment on the
            scientific imagination that to read some of the literature on the
            origin of life (including many elementary texts) you might think that
            it had been well demonstrated that nucleotides were probable
            constituents of a primordial soup and hence the prevital nucleic acid
            replication was a plausible speculation based on the results of the
            experiments. There have indeed been many interesting and detailed
            experiments in this area. But the importance of this work lies, in my
            mind, not in demonstrating how nucleotides could have formed on the
            primitive Earth, but in PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE: these experiments
            allow us to see, in much greater detail than would otherwise been
            possible, just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible."
            [emphasis mine].

            R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Prebiotic Nucleic
            Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments
            like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the
            implausible conditions under which they are conducted:
            "Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis
            of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However,
            these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and
            are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any
            nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would
            tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would
            be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances
            which would react preferentially with them."

            Speaking as an evolutionist, and therefore, aa an apriori believer in
            abiogenesis, Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, 13
            (4) 348. writes:

            "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the
            fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better
            perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on
            Earth rather than to it's solution. At present all discussions on
            principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a
            stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

            "Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about
            detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal
            evolutionary processes from pre-biotic molecules to pregenotes have
            not been proven by experimentation and the environmental conditions
            under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do
            not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells
            actually originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides
            (necleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure
            function relationships in modern cells came into existence."

            Leslie Orgel "The Origin of Life on Earth" Scientific American 271,
            October 1994. P 77-83.

            "It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of
            which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place
            at the same time. Yet it seems impossible to have one without the
            other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life
            never could in fact have originated by chemical means."

            "We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what
            is called the RNA world. ... This scenario could have occurred we
            noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today; a
            capacity to replicate without the help of proteins, and an ability to
            catalyze every step of protein synthesis. ..."

            "The precise events giving rise to an RNA world remain unclear. As we
            have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence
            in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. ..."


            ++++++++++++++++

            Enter Gaia.

            What I propose is that the probablilities problem ignores a selective
            pressures by choatic climate inputs and actually crude early earth
            living, global feedbacks. These selections then drove the early RNA
            world toward the complexity that some investigating the Miller
            experiment found improbable, or proving intelligent design. In so
            proposing, I am going to intially draw on a couple of seemingly
            unrelated ideas.

            1. Cirrus clouds, convection, electro mechanical movements and heat
            dynamics.

            The big Nature paper on topic is "Increases in greenhouse forcing
            from outgiong longwave radiation spectra of the Earlth in 1970 and
            1997"
            John E. Harris et a Nature (v.410, p.355, 15 March 2001). From that
            paper I quote:

            " . . . broad-band difference signals could occur of aerosol or
            cloud 'contamination' remains in the notaionally clear fields of
            view. Using availabe aerosol data,24 we have shown that ice cloud,
            particularly if composed of small crystals, does exhibit stronger
            absorption in the 800-1,000cm-1 than the the 1,100-1,200 cm-1
            window. It is quite possible that small residual amounts of ice
            cloud absorption remain in both sets of data. Owing to the larger
            field of view, the IRIS spectra have a much higher probability of
            being contaminated their IMG counterparts. The observed 1 K or so
            enhancement of the 800-1,000 cm-1 difference signal would be
            consistent with this, and could also arise from change in the mean
            cirrus microphysical properties. We cannot separate these two
            effects, but we do conclude that the observed window difference
            spectra strongly indicate an effect involving residual small ice
            crystal effects, incompletely cleared from the data. R.J.B. has
            performed further calculations, following on earlier work26, which
            confirm that the window difference specta of the magnitude observed
            can easily arise from small changes in the amount, size or shape of
            small ice crystals: these studies also indicate that the difference
            spectrum should be larger below 920 cm-1, which is consistent with
            the observed data, especially the global case (Fig.1b). Further work
            on these and other cloud effects in the data will be performed
            separately: for the present, we believe we have demonstrated a
            sufficient understanding of the observations to give confidnece to
            the
            principals finds of this work regarding radiative forcing due to CH4,
            CO2, O3 and chlorofluorocarbons.

            Third, we must also take into account inter-annual variability as a
            possible cause of the observed difference spectra. In the window
            region, the brightness temperature difference is strongly modulated
            by short-term fluxtuations, such as inter-annual variablity (specific
            concern involves the 1997 warm El Nino/Southern Oscilation, ENSO,
            event). Our studies show that, while this could account of an
            uncertainty of 1 K in the position of the zero line in the spatially
            and temporally averaged differecne spectra used, it could not account
            for the sharp spectral features observed, nor the differential window
            signal just discussed."

            24. Shettle, E.P. in Atmospheric Propagation in the UV, Visible, IR
            and MM-wave Region and Related Systems Aspects 15-1-15-12 (AGARD-CP-
            454, Air Force Geophysics lab., Bedford, Massachusetts, 1990).
            25. Ackerman, S., Smith, W., Spinhirne, J. & Revercomb, H. The 27-8
            October 1986 FIR IFO cirrus cloud study: spectral properties of
            cirrus cloud in the 8-12 um windo., Mon. Wealth. Rev 118 2377-2388
            (1990).
            26. Bantges, R., Russell, & Haigh, J. Cirrus cloud top-of-atmosphere
            rediance spectra in the thermal infrared. J. Quant. Sepctroc. Radiat.
            Transfer 63, 487-498 (1999).

            See also http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/smoking.htm

            Daly is partially correct--and the third point of Harris is incorrect
            to NOT attribute the change in cirrus behavior to ENSO. Yet again, it
            isn't really Sea Surface Temperatures, hereinafter ("SSTs"), we are
            talking about--although that is how the change in cirrus distribution
            manefests itself. For it isn't the SSTs that force the cirrus but
            more how the electromagnetic fields, herein after ("EMFs"), force the
            cirrus behaviors--which vary the SSTs--despite the fact that warmer
            SSTs are more conductive.

            The recent MIT's Prof. R. S. Lindzen et al AMS article: "Does the
            Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?" is available online. Lindzen's
            paper on iris is available at
            http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-
            0477&volume=082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the link
            "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.

            http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/paper010723.pdf

            http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/IRIS_BAMS.pdf

            http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/BAMS_1459_rev.pdf

            http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/BAMS_1459_Append.pdf

            http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/1423Lindzenrevised.pdf

            I would mention that these people, who have great CVs but no EMF or
            biology kens, fail to look at the biosphere or EMFs for reasons why
            they are seeing what they are seeing. Therefore, like the CO2 as GHG
            warmers and skeptics (who usually point to clouds), they fight each
            other's strawmen.

            Keep in mind that impedance (Z) considers resistance, inductance, and
            capacitance--and impedance would be impacted by SSTs . . .

            But this is the context that Lindzen had as he SELECTED his data to
            the tropical West Pacific during La Nina.

            Tom Wigley, Dennis Hartman et al, Wielicki, have all fairly countered
            Lindzen's extrapolations. BUT, what hasn't occurred is a square
            addressing of the Lindzen DATA. And the problem as is that cirrus
            were being moved and sorted by EMF, and that induction applied. While
            many have coupled warmer SSTs with cloud behaviors, even this basis
            is electrical in that the warmer the oceans the better they conduct.
            It should be understood that the earth's EMF behavior is oriented so
            that the south pole is actually magnetic north as to application of
            Fleming's right hand rule. The south pole/north pole issue (look at
            how your compass points NORTH--your compass is a true bar magnet with
            magnetic north pointing geographically north and since opposits
            attract--geographical north is a magnetic south pole!). Next was the
            problem of the very very small induction that you would measure just
            based on the earth's EMF.

            Consider this link to an abstract about measurable induction by ocean
            currents:

            http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1992/dbs9201.html

            BUT, what this fails to to see is that lightening strikes and their
            accompanying transiant fields will present EMFs that are HUGE in
            relation to the energies required to move tiny ice crystals in the
            air--particularly if these crystals carry charge characteristics. How
            is a pattern of Fleming's right hand rule in relation to Lindzen's
            data shown?

            The key to the whole thing is biological modulation of the whole
            pattern--because that is where a FINELY tuned relationship between
            the radiation based oscillations of solar activity can be balanced
            against the EMF character of the suns emissions. The fact that
            conductivity is a measure of MORE than just the temperature of the
            conducter, but its movement and chemical content, spells confusion
            for those not understanding the key forcing on the cirrus, nor even
            understanding the patterns meaning electrically, or what from space
            and from convection the power sources are. In short, SSTs are a poor
            coupling device for understanding long range climate to a
            particular region.


            ENSO was originally defined by fishermen, which therefore gave
            the event not just a SST context but a BIOLOGICAL one. Let's try to
            roughly describe what the La Nina in 1970 meant from an
            EMF standpoint--how EMF impacted cirrus behavior that winter. It
            meant of course relatively cold waters off the tropical coast of Peru
            and warm waters in the tropical West Pacific. But understand
            there are three main ocean currents in the tropical Pacific. The
            North and South Equatorial and the Equatorial. Electro mechanically,
            the North and South Equatorials induct electrical currents FOR cirrus
            and the Equatorial inducts AGAINST cirrus by their mechanical
            movements.

            From a biological EMF standpoint, containment of biological material
            makes waters relatively more conductive. So even if waters off the
            coast of Peru are cold, if they contain upwelling of rich nutrients
            that commence a food chain and strong biological material,
            eventually, the conductivity of the waters improves. Indeed,
            fishermen were the first to describe ENSO--which gives the phenomenon
            a biological aspect that in my view has been completely lost by the
            modern and meteorologically educated, who have constructed the so
            called Japanese definition of ENSO. I make my living with words, and
            if a
            definition doesn't work--neither do I. So that is why I feel that
            this Japanese defintion of El Nino has ultimately been a failure to
            the climate and weather community! It has to WORK!

            And, as I have described here before by simple experiment involving a
            glass of salt water, a volt meter and a microwave oven--the warmer
            salt water is, the greater conductivity or less resistance it has.

            La Nina conditions off the coast of Peru tends to prevent rainfall to
            South America--so there isn't any shoreline biologically based
            conductivities enhanced for improving large scale low frequency EMF
            (Doran waves) activity that enhances cirrus locally, either, or
            biological activity that is shore or hydrate related. Along the
            warmest and largest and most connected expanse of oceans in the
            tropical Pacific, then, induction against cirrus dominates. Fair
            weather and positive voltages to ground dominate, and heat escapes to
            space for lack of cirrus.

            THEREFORE, during a La Nina along the Equatorial currents ambiant
            winds are going to overall produce first very conductive induction
            against cirrus because the waters are anomaly warm to the west, even
            if biologically depleted, and then very inductive waters against
            cirrus in the east because even though the waters become colder--they
            are biologically active such that they contain conductive materials
            near the surface that but for the biological activity would have
            remained more diffused to the colder, non-conductive depths of the
            oceans.

            This, again, leads to dry conditions over the warmest and largest
            expanse of ocean in the world. Fair weather voltages, or positive
            voltages at 250 volts per meter begin to dominate the tropics. This
            clears the air of cirrus. The above Harris and Lindzen papers are
            nothing more that data that supports exactly this.

            Now, comparing this electrical condition of the 1970 La Nina with the
            1997 El Nino is OF COURSE going to give different cirrus behavior--we
            have the coldest anomaly central Pacific waters to the west--and the
            warmest near the coast of Peru. To the west, induction against cirrus
            along the Equatorial will be reduced simply by temperature--as colder
            anomaly means less conductive anomaly. But then to the central and
            eastern side of the Equatorial the biological activity fed by
            upwelling is reduced. Those waters become biologically inactive. In
            this situation, the Equatorial is either cold or biologically
            depleted, even if those waters were warm anomaly such that one would
            think that they would induct against cirrus.

            Understand, too, that when you see the warm anomalies off the coast
            of Peru--they are just that--anomalies. The warmest waters overall
            remain in the Western Pacific due to coriolis turning the gyres and
            the warmest surface waters west. This makes induction favoring fair
            weather in the warmest current, the Equatorial, much more difficult
            than during La Nina conditions, simply from a conductivity
            standpoint. There is less fair weather, then, and the voltages of 250
            per meter to ground. The fair weather zone shrinks and places like
            Peru and California are able to produce Doran waves, or low freq
            large scale ion movements that include convective or negative to
            ground voltages. The hydrology varies and further feeds back
            biological EMF conditions of less resistance that enhance the
            condition. Meanwhile, the North and South Equatorials are able to
            enhance large areas of cirrus as they warm. . .

            2. Electrophoresis, Cirrus, and Gaia over Intelligent Design.

            http://www.rit.edu/~pac8612/electro/E_Sim.html

            This above link is a typical one on electrophoresis. This is a
            process by which nuceotides are moved by charge potentials. This
            same kind of movement and sorting can occur between the ionosphere,
            which is conductive, and cloud tops, where cirrus clouds are
            created. The cirrus behaviors, then, can feed back heat trapping and
            convective activity, depending on the DNA content in these ice
            crystals. So, as it turns out, early life would have had its
            selective pressure and feedback to it just based on DNA--nothing else
            required. Protiens likewise would have presented electro mechanical
            influence on the cloud particles, and hence modulated or further
            dampened the cloud behaviors, and further caused "intelligent"
            selective pressures on the chemical, thermal and convective behaviors
            caused by what kinds of nucleotides were created. Even the left
            handedness of the nucliotides then is explained simply by the fact
            that the electrical mechanical properties are enhanced by uniformity
            that evolved against this selective pressure. In the true feedback
            sense, then, the earth was "alive" before individual cells, and only
            after time did the complexity of cellular life evolve into what we
            see today. This then explains the problem of origins, IOWs whether
            first life was in volcanic events or in the air or ocean--self
            replicating nuclietides were undoubtly EVERYWHERE on earth and this
            genetic material was SHARED by the global biosphere, as it attempted
            to modulate, dampen, the chaotic inputs to what was forming climate
            in early earth history. As the biosphere became more effective at
            this, nucleotides that were good at this modulation passed on to
            future generations, and the design began to APPEAR intelligent.
          • David
            ... Ok, so I m a lousy typist! That s certainly no secret. ... I am perhaps a bit unusual in that I am a Born-again Christian, but also an old Earther. My
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 5, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > Do you think it is fair for me to be critical of you? Of so, is it
              > fair for you to defend your, say, typo, based on your faith?

              Ok, so I'm a lousy typist! That's certainly no secret.

              > There is considerable controversy remaining in a debate about the
              > origins of life. This controversy centers around a word--
              > abiogenesis. Scientists tend to want to REDUCE the causes, the
              > causal chain between chemistry that is lifeless and that which we
              > think of as life. A large number of scholars, however, have a theory
              > that there is a "Creator", and that life was begot by this creator.
              > Some of these scholars argue that there was an intelligent design for
              > early life, and others will say the earth is young and things just
              > magically appeared, poof, the way they are, about 7,000 years ago.
              > These are the so called young earthers.

              I am perhaps a bit unusual in that I am a Born-again Christian, but
              also an "old Earther." My thinking is this. If the universe were
              only 7000 years old, then the universe should appear to us as a sphere
              with a 14,000 light year diameter, since we shouldn't be able to see
              anything further away than 7000 light years. Obviously, that's not
              the case. Either that, or everything we think we know about the time
              and distance scales of the universe if off by a HUGE factor (including
              stars relatively close by whose distance can be directly measured by
              parallax), or light once travelled MUCH faster than it now does.
              Either one would completely invalidate virtually every law of
              cosmology and physics known to man.

              At the same time, however, my Faith is at the very core of my being.
              Without Jesus, I am nothing.

              I will freely admit that if questioned, I could not adequately explain
              how the Biblical account of creation and how the Darwinian theories
              fit together. I do know that Darwin's theories are just that,
              theories, and should not be blindly accepted as fact. There are
              several rather glaring problems with them.

              At any rate, I did not take offense at your statements, but rather
              just curious as to why you were making them. As you said, just
              because somebody is a "religious right wing nut" does not make them
              ignorant of science. I think I would be an example of that.
            • Mike Doran
              and yet I still like writing more on Gaia and sexual reproduction. Is that the devil, God, Holy Ghost, or Jesus in me? I don t know, and does it matter?
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 6, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                and yet I still like writing more on Gaia and sexual reproduction.
                Is that the devil, God, Holy Ghost, or Jesus in me? I don't know,
                and does it matter?

                +++++++++++++++

                If sexual reproduction in plants, animals and humans is a result of
                evolutionary sequences, creationists argue that the series of chance
                events that must have occurred at each stage would be so unlikely as
                to be impossible.

                They claim that an amazingly complex, radically different, yet
                complementary reproductve systems of the male and female must have
                completely and independantly evolved at each stage at about the same
                time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two
                would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would
                become extinct.

                The physical, chemical and behavioral systems of the male and female
                would have to be compatible.

                Millions of complex products of male reproductive system (pollen or
                sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical, and
                ELECTRICAL compatiblity with the eges of the female prepoductive
                system.

                The microbiology also must match--the intricate processes occurring
                inside the entity as the nucleotides must mesh.

                How is Gaia involved?

                Part of the concept of gene sharing and symbiotic relationships is
                that conductivity changes to the ocean surface must balance with the
                charge potentials of the cirrus clouds. These are the clouds that are
                sorted by charge, just like DNA is sorted in the process of
                electrophoresis and banding then determines genomes. The sorting then
                leads to modulating the infra red behaviors, the heat and convection
                feedbacks that leads to climate.

                The problem is that size matters in the air and in the oceans much
                differently. In the ocean, a multicellular creature near the surface
                of the ocean may increase conductivity, while that same creature
                would fall out of the sky due to its weight. Yet, it's reproductive
                information can fit on a tiny strand of nucleotides that can move
                like dust in the winds, and be a part of cloud nucleation that
                becomes heat trapping cirrus, be at the right charge along with the
                cirrus to move between the electromagnetic fields in between the
                cloud tops and the ionosphere, depending on what is the state of
                these fields determined by such things as solar lumenousity, solar
                insOlation, cosmic ray flux, and so forth.

                There is a reason male reproductive units which match the relatively
                much larger female eggs are small. It has to do with the evolutionary
                context of a living earth and the specific, original purpose of
                nucleotides--modulating cirrus cloud behaviors.

                ++++++++++++++++++++

                Why We See Red When Looking at Ocean Plants September 19, 2003

                Rutgers marine scientists say phytoplankton changed color 250 million
                years ago

                NEW BRUNSWICK/PISCATAWAY, N.J. - Green was the dominant color for
                plants both on land and in the ocean until about 250 million years
                ago when changes in the ocean's oxygen content - possibly sparked by
                a cataclysmic event - helped bring basic ocean plants with a red
                color to prominence - a status they retain today. That's the view of
                a group led by marine scientists from Rutgers, The State University
                of New Jersey, in a paper, "The Evolutionary Inheritance of Elemental
                Stoichiometry in Marine Phytoplankton" in the journal Nature,
                published Thursday (Sept. 18).

                Studying ancient fossils plus current species of microscopic ocean
                plants called phytoplankton, the scientists found evidence that
                a "phytoplankton schism" took place after a global ocean oxygen
                depletion killed 85 percent of the organisms living in the ocean
                about 250 million years ago at the end of the Permian era. "This
                paved the way for the evolution of red phytoplankton," said one of
                the paper's authors, Paul G. Falkowski, professor in the
                Environmental Biophysics and Molecular Ecology Program at Rutgers'
                Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences (IMCS). Falkowski has a
                joint appointment with Rutgers' Department of Geological Sciences.

                The Permian era, prior to the advent of the dinosaurs, ended in a
                global extinction scientists believe may have been linked to
                extraterrestrial collisions or earthly eruptions or explosions.

                "Plants on land are green, and they inherited the cell components
                that gave them a green color about 400 million years ago," Falkowski
                said. "But most of plants or phytoplankton in the ocean are red -
                they inherited their pigments about 250 million years ago. Our paper
                suggests that a global ocean oxygen depletion changed the chemistry
                of the ocean and selected for red phytoplankton. The ocean has been
                dominated by the red line ever since."

                Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

                Comment:

                The problem of the ever lumenous sun suggested by Carl Sagan is
                addressed, as you all know, by changes to cloud dynamics via
                conductivities. Gas exchange with O2 in an ocean filled with O2 is an
                interesting conductivity issue and hints at a Gaia that struggles to
                LOSE conductivity to maintain the signals noise ratios and other
                aspects of the cosmic and solar electrical input into this system.
                There are biological metabolism issues respecting O2 as well . . .

                I should mention that the original Gaia theory had a sub story called
                daisyland. Carl Sagan himself with his essay on an ever lumenous sun
                and questions of science made popular comes in an interestnig
                spiritual context, in that his first wife was one of the writers who
                wrote about Gaia, and daisyland. The idea is that if the earth is too
                hot it blooms daisies of different colors that retain or reflect
                heat. This daisyland idea was formed in the context of CO2 as a green
                house gas, which now modernly is held properly to good skeptical
                science that questions the place CO2 has as a "daisy" compared to
                clouds, which either trap on earth or release to space almost all
                heat energy from the sun.

                So with the old theory, Carl Sagan's problem was solved by dark
                daisies in the past, and light ones in the present. Interestingly,
                Carl Sagan's daughter is a microbiologist!!!! But I digress, don't I?

                What I am suggesting, from my EMF and biological background, is that
                the forcing is ELECTRICAL and THEN thermal by cloud behavior. Cirrus
                clouds, mostly. It is an entirely different take on Gaia theory and
                daisyland, and more powerful because the feedbacks are instantanious
                at the speed of EMFs globally, and don't rely on the time it takes
                for CO2 levels to change globally, for instance.

                So when biologists discover evidence of red algaes running back about
                250 million years (probably through some of the DNA studies that are
                getting quite good and running down the tree of life) and this is put
                in a Gaia context, the Daisyland approach would be to say that the
                red spectrum is different than the green. BUT what I am saying is
                conductivity matters more, not albedo. Follow?

                Red is a color of iron, BTW, and rust. Oxydized iron. That means that
                in an ocean without oxygen, that we have today, the iron has some
                kind of an important gaia conductivity role, I would speculate . . .
                compared to a past when the oceans contained more oxygen and the sun
                was slightly less lumenous . . . and that importance is more critical
                to a living earth than the slight efficiencies brought to bear to
                photosynthesis by having a green color.

                My view is that upwelling by cold waters would bring higher levels of
                iron, and so would rivers eroding iron, that would otherwise fall by
                gravity to the ocean bottom and get buried. Iron gets retained by
                life--by the algaes, and would help retain increased local
                conductivities that are at the heart of Gaia and modulated cloud
                dynamics. Again, it is the idea that when you are hot you sweat, cold
                you shiver. When ocean SSTs are hot, they are more conductive BUT
                lack upwelled nutrients like iron for increased biological
                conductivities, and hence are prone to a feedback of modulation.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.