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

Climate modeling and Gaia

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=949&wit_id=2676 Dr. Tom M.L. Wigley Comments: The problem with experianced based models is you don t know
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 12, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=949&wit_id=2676

      Dr. Tom M.L. Wigley

      Comments:

      The problem with experianced based models is you don't know if the
      dice are weighted. IOWs, the way you know if a die will roll a six,
      to say one in six chance, is to assume that it is a perfect die and
      randomly thrown. The way you TEST that is to actually roll it many
      times and then make a ratio from the results. What the models do is
      look at the experience and then make predictions. BUT what isn't
      understood is climate is a MODULATED occurrance, not a steady dynamic
      as would be assumed from a forcing that CO2 is first a green house
      gas that then causes water vapor heat retaining feedbacks. What
      really is occurring is clouds are forced by electrical conditions,
      and CO2 impacts clouds in the manner of changing EMF conditions
      either directly or through changes to the biosphere which modulates
      these conditions.Therefore, the models fail to capture the key
      forcings involved and what they mean locally, regionally, and
      globally.

      For instance, with McCain's Arizona, a graph of a town's temperatures
      is quite meaningless to regional conditions. Why? Does it show the
      1,800 year drought that is occurring right now? McCain's
      pro "warming" stance will not meet much resistance in Arizona--
      because people who live there KNOW something is wrong. But what the
      Arizona voters who support McCain probably do not appreciate is the
      Colorado Arizona Project, or CAP, which brings Pheonix water from the
      Colorado River, may have more to do with their fires and drought than
      CO2--at least for the time being. As it turns out, conductivity
      changes to the Gulf of California have far more to do with
      precipitation factors like the monsoon's health than what is
      experienced in some town's temperature profile. The current dialog
      on climate is horribly flawed, and very evil people with an agenda
      are goose stepping into it. History is interesting this way, and
      includes the fact that Hoover's dams . . . and dust bowl, caused
      drought in Germany that occurred before Hitler was Hitler.

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

      According to Carl Sagan's essay on an ever lumenous sun, if you are
      speaking of larger timescales--on order of billions of years, the sun
      was LESS lumenous than it is now when early life first came into
      being. About 25 percent less 4 billion years ago. Therefore, it is
      reasonable to assume that the planet was cooler and drier as an
      initial state. That would be good for nucleotides, which would
      survive better under these conditions.

      What I am saying is that the nucleotides would probably be blown from
      the surface, much like dust, and on them water would condense, and
      eventually the water rise to the upper cloud by convective processes
      and freezes to become cirrus cloud particles. Those particles will
      MOVE ELECTRO MECHANICALLY between the conductive ionosphere and cloud
      top, much like nucleotides are moved on a electrophoresis strip--in
      BANDS. That is because like nucleotides will have like charge. Hence,
      sorting occurs INDENPENDANT of chemically favor reactions by energy
      differentials. Complexity then arises as these molecules recombine
      and then become functional. Functional replication allows more to be
      blown up into the clouds, and again would find feedbacks that would
      favor their formation or not.

      Stolamites dating back over 3 billion years fix the first impressions
      of cellular life. So what I am speaking to began before then. Here is
      the problem. Lifeless chemistry diffuses, and in a huge ocean, for
      instance, quickly becomes well mixed. That is significant because
      ELECTRICALLY everything is the same. OTOH, LIFE contains chemistries.
      Orders them. Therefore life itself is electrically signifant.
      Cellular life, in particular to the ocean, would be more significant
      in sum to conductivity whereas cellular life may be too large to have
      as much an impact on cirrus. Algae has been found in EPAC tropical
      storm cirrus as far as the four corner states--so that may be why
      there are no two, three, or four celled creatures--as they became too
      large to have any electrical impact on cirrus. Pollen and spores OTOH
      can have an electrical impact on cloud nucliation, but that's about
      it.

      Anyway, once things became cellular, free nucleotides probably had
      great difficulting competing. Especially if there were hybreds that
      were massively replicated, that had male like size and then were
      connected symbiotically to something that would have an impact on
      surface conductivities, unlike what just a creature which was
      nucleotide based only. The ability of a cell to contain chemistry
      would allow it to explosively reproduce and still have the Gaia
      ability to modulate conductivities and hence modulate climate
      feedbacks. But before the cell, nucleotides faced much less that
      would destroy them, even over longer time periods, and a slow,
      effective, sorting and increase in complexity could have and did
      occur.

      There is an interesting study out that shows that African dust is
      associated with Cape Verde tropical storms. The question to ask is--
      was their dust in early earth and if so, what was its source? If
      indeed climate was unmodulated but electrically forced in early
      earth, weather patterns where probably more chaotic and likely free
      from much dust, because there weren't forrest fires, there weren't
      patterns of substantial rain caused erosions that would bring
      sediments that were dusty. On a cooler earth, space dust may come,
      and a little terrestrial, but that would amplify the importance of
      chemicals like nucleotides that were on the earth surface, because,
      again, life contains chemistries, and otherwise chemistry is diffused
      into more random patterns. Hence, once the feedbacks occurred and
      the nucleotides began to replicate, their signal will become more and
      more clear, electrically, against the noise of diffusion and mixed
      dust. The very fact that there IS a Sahara where dust has settled in
      an organized manner and place by its very nature points to a living
      earth.

      Is it an earth we will be able to keep?
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.