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

A cold look at the sun.

Expand Messages
  • mike@usinter.net
    But rather than starting from my intake of radiation by EMF pattern standpoint, which is based on my qualitative and vector math observations, and I will like
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 5, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      But rather than starting from my intake of radiation by EMF pattern
      standpoint, which is based on my qualitative and vector math
      observations, and I will like the leading fossil fuel back solarists,
      Baliunas et al, and their recent paper, with critical comments:

      http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soonetal00NA.pdf

      I would start from the end of the paper, page 11, 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, biological
      activity, prevailing SSTs. 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
      evidence 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:

      "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
      irradiance 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. "

      . . .

      "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. "

      "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 large 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 and calls for continued, close consideration of
      internal climatic factors . . . "

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

      Under concluding sections:

      "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 scheme of Simon & Legrand (1992). They found evidence not
      only for the opposit responses in the surface temperatures from solar
      particle events originating from from polar and equatorial regions,
      but also for regional responses sensitive to the location relative to
      the terrestrial magnetic meridian line. 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.

      I would like to connect with this discussion of the sun another
      Sallie, her research, and suggest to you that these Sallies
      should "talk":


      http://web.mit.edu/biology/www/facultyareas/facresearch/chisholm.shtml


      "We participated in three expeditions that tested this hypothesis, in
      which a patch of ocean was fertilized with iron, and the response of
      the phytoplankton community was monitored. The results were dramatic.
      Phytoplankton biomass increased 20-fold with the addition of iron,
      and the structure of the phytoplankton community also changed
      substantially. Our role in the project was to describe and understand
      the differential response of phytoplankton species to iron
      enrichment."

      There is an interesting aspect of iron, no? It's conductive!

      How big is this discussion? Isaac Asomov has a book on "history"
      going back to the Big Bang. As of 1992 when this book was published,
      on the subject of pre cellular life--he had no answer (the scientific
      community HAD no answer).

      The answer, again, is in cirrus clouds. The reason there is a
      difference between surface algae Sallie Chisholm discusses in the
      above link and in Sci Am this December issue, page 52-3, and the
      deeper algae is explained in this way. Nucleotide parasols must alter
      a movement between ionosphere and conductive, field from convection
      charged cloud tops, and in the oceans below, later, cellular life in
      cummulations altered the conductivity of the oceans. Different role,
      but symbiotically related.

      More comments from the Scientific American December issue where she
      says on page 52 several things about Prochlorococcus, which she
      discovered in 1988, which are fundimentally ignorant of Gaia:

      "1. That "the microbe's minute size enables it to capture sunlight
      efficiently (there is less self-shading)"

      This implies incorrectly why the microbe is small. It evolved to this
      size simply because by its history it stems from smaller nucleotide
      based parasol cirrus modulators and because once it became cellular,
      the tiny ice crystals that form around it work more efficiently at
      trapping heat underneath, and are more responsive to the charge
      potential it carries given its mass and shape and size.

      2. It is "responsible for half of the photosynthesis in the oceans. A
      drop of seaswater contains up to 20,000 cells."

      This is informative, but what is missing here is, like Paul Harvey
      loves to say, is the rest of the story. Converting CO2 to sugar and
      O2 is critical in the ocean's surface because the methane in oceans
      is broken down into CO2, and food chains metabolize down to CO2. CO2
      on the ocean surface will with ambiant winds gas exchange, meaning
      they move between CO2 as a gas and CO2 as carbonic acid. This frees
      electrons and drops the conductivity of the water in an essentially
      amplified chaotic way. Carbonic acid also impacts conductivity. By
      removing the CO2, the algae produces a less conductive gas exchange
      state and at the same time produces an ability to have a biological
      signal dependant on the level of positive input of iron in the water,
      or the negative input of chemistry that is poisonous, or temperatures
      that are poisonous to its existence. The algae, hence, becomes
      sensitive to upwellings. IOWs the algae impacts conductivity better,
      thereby modulating large scale ion waves and cloud behaviors.

      "3. Even if you fertized the entire oceans [with iron], it wouldn't
      make much of a dent on global warming--at best postponing the
      inenvitable by about five years."

      This misstates the forcing--which is cloud and cirrus parasol, ion
      movement/conductivity based. It misstates a modulated system over a
      chaotic system.

      Clouds are forced ELECTRICALLY!!!! Think IRON might be important in
      this? Dah! Meanwhile, also at MIT is Professor Lindzen, who is chain
      smoking and cannot explain to himself, or the President, what is the
      mechanism behind the 'iris'. Ask yourself, why is Lindzen and the
      other climatologists so out of touch? And I don't think it is because
      they didn't know that iron was conductive--they have known all along
      about iron firtilizers and algaes and CO2 sinking . . .

      http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/DecadalEnso.htm

      Now, in relation to questions about the sun's role, and the questions
      I here ask, like WHAT is the SOI, the paper above linked is the
      favorite fossil fuel cynic, fake skeptic's substantive argument. The
      problem with the arguement is that correlation is not cause, and
      statistics here are merely showing that given the modulation, the
      signal of the variable sun can be predictive of weather. Put it
      another way, if you are in a hot room and sweating, even though you
      are sweating, your body may be slightly warmer than 98.7 degrees F.
      (alhthough on your skin where evaporation is taking place, it may be
      actually cooler). But the mere fact that there is a variable input
      says nothing about the HEALTH of the dampening feedback, which is key
      here. The question isn't whether there are chaotic inputs that the
      living earth modulates--there are, but whether these modulating
      feedbacks are healthy and doing their job to protect us from the very
      extremes which are being measured and used as an excuse to say, chaos
      was, chaos is, burn fossil fuels, when it is the earth was alive, the
      earth is alive, take care of its health.

      If the models of hurricanes based on Coriolis and Boyles Laws and
      other thermodynamic factors are so great, how come the BEST models,
      with high data input and super computing, are worthless after 5 days.

      Mmmmmm?

      Sounds like something isn't coupling. If anything, this is PROOF that
      there is another forcing afoot. The short term stability of a
      hurricane is electrostatic in nature and from a center or eye extends
      outwards without care of direction of wind, clockwise or
      counterclockwise. Above the eye of a hurricane the ionosphere will
      either have a point or ring of negative ions of extremely high
      voltages. That ring forms with stability because the dielectric of
      water is about 80 times that of air and hence this field can couple
      with the ocean in a capacitive manner. That means that in the
      ionosphere above the cirrus disk the charge will be relatively
      POSITIVE and in the shape of a DISK, surrounding the point or ring of
      negative ions. The positive charge of the ionosphere levitages cirrus
      clouds electrostatically. In no way is this levitation impacted by
      direction of wind, clockwise or counterclockwise.

      Schematic of Hurricane Isabel during cyclops eye stage with 5
      vortices

      IONOSPHERE


      <br>....................+..............+
      <br>.....................\............/
      <br>......................\........../
      <br>.......................v .......v
      <br>........................^......^
      <br>.........................\..../
      <br>..........................\../
      <br>..........................-.-
      <br>.+ -----><----- - + - -----><----- +
      <br>............................-
      <br>............................|
      <br>............................|
      <br>............................v
      <br>............................^
      <br>............................|
      <br>............................|
      <br>............................+

      ATLANTIC SURFACE


      <br>....................-..............-
      <br>.....................\............/
      <br>......................\........../
      <br>.......................v .......v
      <br>........................^......^
      <br>.........................\..../
      <br>..........................\../
      <br>..........................+.+
      <br>.- -----><----- + - + -----><----- -
      <br>............................+
      <br>............................|
      <br>............................|
      <br>............................v
      <br>............................^
      <br>............................|
      <br>............................|
      <br>............................-



      Ionosphere Ocean Capacitive Coupling:

      <br>............................-..+..-
      <br>............................|..|..|
      <br>............................|..|..|
      <br>............................v..v..v
      <br>............................^..^..^
      <br>............................|..|..|
      <br>............................|..|..|
      <br>............................+..-..+


      http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/phys151/lectures/lecture
      _jan_13_2003.shtml

      Link for refresher on static electrical forces.

      Quantify it.

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

      I like this Hartmann/Fu paper best. Check out figure on page 22
      entitled Net Cloud Radiative forcing. This tells you how important
      cloud dynamics are in heat dynamics.

      Thankfully, the complexities of cloud heat retentions is simplyfied,
      visually, by IR loops. I use them all the time to seen how the EMF is
      altering cirrus when watching a hurricane real time.


      Strikes do not occur in cirrus disk, because one, dielectric of water
      in disk eighty times that of air in cyclops eye, and charge
      seperations from convection bringing positive voltages to upper cloud
      mass finds a relatively more positive ionosphere and lower cloud with
      negative chages finds relatively negative charges on ocean surface.
      Cirrus in the disk are levitated in displacement current. This
      occurrance can even be seen in smaller scale in the 5 vortices and
      thinner but clearly seen cirrus cover inside the eye highlighting the
      vortices. The center of each of the vortices is clear of clouds, and
      the IR picture appears as 5 circles in a circle, with, again, the
      dielectric difference between air and water playing the part in where
      the capacitive coupling takes place. If a coupling takes place, the
      orientation of cirrus is to cause them be inside a field which
      prevents cloud nucleation and cirrus heat trapping feedbacks.

      http://newsletter.dri.edu/1999/spring/Lightning.html

      There is little or no strike activity inside a hurricane.

      http://www.nalms.org/glossary/lkword_c.htm

      "When supercooled water and ice crystals occur at the same location,
      the ice grows at the expense of the water, and an ice cloud forms.
      This occurs because at a given temperature ice has a greater affinity
      than liquid water for water vapor. Cloud droplets and ice crystals
      first form on certain types of small particles of dust or other
      airborne materials. They are called condensation nuclei when water
      droplets are formed and ice nuclei when ice crystals result. The
      nuclei generally range in size from as small as 0.01 micrometer to
      about 1 micrometer (4/10,000,000 to 4/100,000 inch). The number of
      nuclei vary widely, depending on the source of the air mass in which
      the parcel is imbedded. The atmosphere over the ocean generally has
      the lowest number of nuclei, whereas polluted air has the highest.
      The more nuclei, and therefore the more water droplets or ice
      crystals, the slower the process of formation of precipitation-sized
      particles, because the competition for the available water is
      greater. Thus, although Rain often falls shortly after a cloud forms
      over the ocean, a much longer time is required over continental
      areas."

      KEY LINK--PLEASE REVIEW, this is your cirrus EMF zapping link!

      http://www.ichmt.org/abstracts/Vim-01/abstracts/04-01.pdf

      However, ice growth in a field is asymetrical, slower, and therefore
      does not give phase change energies to the air as effectively, nor
      trap heat. Hurricanes have cold cloudless high pressure areas above
      their eyes, and the reason is electrical.

      Once in the cirrus disk, the lack of strikes and strong dielectric of
      water allows cloud nucleation to take place smoothly and rapidly,
      giving phase change energies to the air and allowing the cloud mass
      to rise. This cirrus well traps heat underneath it, furthering
      convection processes.


      The argument that Buliamus is making is that w/ the reduction of the
      solar output/field comes cosmic ray flux.

      The argument is just a postulation, they admit, because they don't
      know what is going on w/ inputs--how what is happening in space is
      taken on earth.

      What I am saying is these La Ninas are biological increases in
      conductivity that are "warmer" than they should be because of how
      they take the heat, not how they get it.

      During La Nina the western Pacific Equatorial Current is very warm,
      and biologically depleted. However, the ENSO 1,2 regions by Peru are
      very cold, w/ upwelling. That brings biological activity and chemical
      containment that is more conductive. Hence, along the equator in the
      Pacific, in the largest expanse of ocean, which is connected
      electrically to most of the day, solar signals of an electrical
      nature get organized powerfully by induction--the movement of the
      Equatorial Current, independant of the sun's signal brought to the
      closed isobars of the poles. This strong inducting current zaps
      cirrus along the Equatorial!

      http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/Soonetal00NA.pdf

      The most telling graph is page 11 as well as 573. If it is helpful,
      when in pdf there is a magnefying function you can use. Look at not
      were the correlations are on but where they are not. Start with the
      1988-9 La Nina. That is where we are starting to talk about Lindzen's
      selected data.

      Anyway, what is going on is that solar activity is low, but the earth
      is hot. Why?

      Think shivering when cold. Upwelling in ENSO 1,2 causes increases of
      algae activity with the nutrients. That increases conductivities.
      Cirrus trap heat and the earth warms.

      It's fairly consistant across the board w/ the La Ninas.

      Now, of course the sun being more active is going to warm the oceans,
      the troposphere, BUT that warming comes with, eventually, a lack of
      upwelling and a depleted marine nutrient level, especially in the
      cloudless equatorial regions in the Pacific where river run off is
      not nearby. The resulting lack of biological activity drops the
      conductivity. Although warmer salt water is more conductive, the lack
      of life relatively drops the conductivity.The argument that Buliamus
      is making is that w/ the reduction of the solar output/field comes
      cosmic ray flux.

      The argument is just a postulation, they admit, because they don't
      know what is going on w/ inputs--how what is happening in space is
      taken on earth.

      What I am saying is these La Ninas are biological increases in
      conductivity that are "warmer" than they should be because of how
      they take the heat, not how they get it.

      During La Nina the western Pacific Equatorial Current is very warm,
      and biologically depleted. However, the ENSO 1,2 regions by Peru are
      very cold, w/ upwelling. That brings biological activity and chemical
      containment that is more conductive. Hence, along the equator in the
      Pacific, in the largest expanse of ocean, which is connected
      electrically to most of the day, solar signals of an electrical
      nature get organized powerfully by induction--the movement of the
      Equatorial Current, independant of the sun's signal brought to the
      closed isobars of the poles. This patterns cloud behaviors and traps
      heat. The earth warms despite the sun.

      Thankfully, the complexities of cloud heat retentions is simplyfied,
      visually, by IR loops. I use them all the time to seen how the EMF is
      altering cirrus when watching a hurricane real time.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/Archive/Sep2003/Isabel
      _tmo2003255.jpg

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
      3?img_id=11701

      http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/pub/goes/030913.isabel.gif

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
      3?img_id=11701

      What you could really see this season in eye watching, with the
      sophisticated satellite imagary of today, is how the capactive
      coupling elongated cirrus formations, as described in the linked
      paper above, experimenting with cloud nucleation in DC feilds, and
      that has profound effects.

      1) Slows nucleation processes. That means slower to give phase change
      energy to air. That means moisture diffuses to other nucleating
      particles. Surrounding air relatively cools for lack of phase change
      energy.

      2) Elongated cirrus. This cirrus will not as effectively trap infra
      red heat. Air underneath relatively cools, and causes down drafts.
      Dropping air no longer in zone of phase changing, and melting ice
      takes more heat from air, causing down drafts. Elongated, its shape
      allows gravity and air friction to be decreased, and it falls faster,
      again, to where phase change temperatures cannot be reached. The
      droplets evaporate back into vapor, take phase change temperatures
      from the air, causing further dropping of the air mass.

      3) Dropping air seeks surface low. I have seen on IR not just the
      pictures of the 5 vortices of Isabel, but also tropical storms with
      very powerful point EMFs literally burning a path through the clouds
      toward the surface low, frame by frame. When the surface low and the
      electrical condition couple, storms explode. Each of the 5 vortices
      of Isabel contained elongated or no cirrus, and a down draft engine
      was created--very much like a tornado. This is the mechanism of the
      destruction of Andrew, BTW, same star shaped eye. Relatively
      speaking, the eye is free of clouds, and the symetry of the storm is
      kept.

      Methodically, let's discuss the EMF vectors involved.

      You have during La Nina a very very conductive Equatorial current.
      Problem is that this conductivity is used against itself in terms of
      impedance, because the current moves from east to west, which inducts
      an electrical current relative to the large scale low frequency ion
      waves and coupling discussed. During La Nina the west tropical
      Pacific is warm anomaly and warmer salt water is more conductive.
      Likewise, the tropical east Pacific contains much life from the
      upwelling--so even though the water is colder, life provides a
      conductivity enhancing forcing.

      What appears then to be going on is an 'iris', exactly as the Lindzen
      paper indicates, which cools the oceans by the same elongation
      mechanism on cirrus caught between a very strong capacitive coupling
      between ionsphere and ocean. Since the ionosphere is positively
      charged at its base, that coupling would require that the surface
      have a Negative charge. IOWs, that the induction feature of the east
      to west mode causes a downward current vector--which flows electons
      to the surface. If you take your right hand, orient it as required by
      Fleming's right hand rule,

      http://www.crocodile-clips.com/absorb/AP4/sample/DJFPh055.html

      and assume that the earth's south pole is EMF north. Assume that the
      earth is below you on your lap, from the perspective of looking at
      the Pacific Ocean and that the south pole is closest to you and north
      away. Point your right hand index finger at yourself and your thumb
      back hooking toward your right hand. That is the orientation of the
      Equatorial current, which moves from west to east. Your bird finger
      points into the ocean, POSITIVE current flowing away from the ocean
      surface, rendering it NEGATIVELY charged.

      http://www.schooljunction.com/electric_current.htm

      Note that "[b]y convention, the direction of flow of current is taken
      to be the direction of flow of positive charge. The electrons always
      flow in direction opposite to marked in circuit diagrams."

      This creates a very powerful displacement current that elongates
      cirrus clouds coming into the Equatorial current.

      That is 'iris'.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.