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

In Memory of John Daly

Expand Messages
  • mike@usinter.net
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ James Hansen wrote: The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure out how something works. To do
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 30, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      James Hansen wrote:

      "The fun in science is to explore a topic from all angles and figure
      out how something works. To do this well, a scientist learns to be
      open-minded, ignoring prejudices that might be imposed by religious,
      political or other tendencies (Galileo being a model of excellence).
      Indeed, science thrives on repeated challenge of any interpretation,
      and there is even special pleasure in trying to find something wrong
      with well-accepted theory. Such challenges eventually strengthen our
      understanding of the subject, but it is a never-ending process as
      answers raise more questions to be pursued in order to further refine
      our knowledge.

      Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and,
      far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their
      contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from
      traditional scientific skepticism.

      I have argued in a recent book review that some "greenhouse skeptics"
      subvert the scientific process, ceasing to act as objective
      scientists, rather presenting only one side, as if they were lawyers
      hired to defend a particular viewpoint. But some of the topics
      focused on by the skeptics are recognized as legitimate research
      questions, and also it is fair to say that the injection of
      environmental, political and religious perspectives in midstream of
      the science research has occurred from both sides in the global
      warming debate."

      In waiting for the greenhouse, Daly has assumed that CO2 as a forcing
      acts by rules of a forcing as a green house gas, and by no other
      means. His remarks center around a failure to couple that specific
      forcing with what was observed. Sadly, in so waiting, he failed to
      consider that CO2 may have another important meaning as a forcing,
      particularly on the cloud behaviors he studied and wrote about. My
      view is the SOI, ENSO, sea level patterns, and even stations of the
      week are more about how cloud behaviors couple from an added aspect
      of large scale electrical couplings, and that CO2 is a clear forcing
      in this aspect, and has not been looked at from either the skeptics
      or the warmers.

      As an outsider to this debate between warmers and the so called
      skeptics, a Gaia EMF theorist, I leave this memorial, as Daly left
      us, with a bit of a skeptical science, that trashes the political
      view by Daly himself but is consistent with his drive to be a
      skeptical voice:


      "The effects of electric field on ice crystal growth had been
      numerically discussed by Scishcheve and Kusalike6-7. They announced
      that the strength of an electric field able to change the ice lattice
      from normal ice(Ih) to cubic ice (Ic) should be at least 10 to the
      5th kV/m [fair weather voltages are about 10 to the -1 k volts per
      meter]. However, the strength of the electric field used in our
      experiments was only 1/400 of the 10 to the 5th kV/m [fair weather
      voltages would be on order of 1/1,000,000 of these voltages, whereas
      w/ tropical storm transiants above the eye, the transiant ratios
      would be similar to the experiments]. Thus, the morphological change
      of the ice in this study was not caused by the ice lattice change.
      Without the electric field, the crystal growth process could be
      considered as a process whereby the water molecules are added one by
      one to the crystal lattice. This 'adding' process has normally the
      same probability in all directions, and leads to the formation of the
      symmetric ice crystal [figure omitted]. However, when a high voltage
      field is applied, the electric field may cause different molecules in
      the DMSO solution[a weak acid--what should be noted is rain water is
      slightly acidic from the CO2 and other particles that get dissolved
      in the air--with a pH of about 5.6] to exhibit different behaviors.
      The polar water molecules/clusters may be torqued and rearranged
      under the action of the electric field and forced to joining the
      lattice in a special orientation and position. Hence, different
      growth rates occur in different directions and the ice crystal
      becomes asymmetric.

      Under the action of an electric field, the water molecules may
      rearrange and line up end to end in the direction of the electric
      field. In viewing the crystal structure, this well-ordered water
      molecules/clusters seems like crystal or quasi-crystallines. In this
      case the water molecules/clusters possess an ideal situation for
      rapid crystal growth. That may be the reason why the main branches,
      which are parallel to the direction of the electric field, grow
      faster than the other branches."

      Once there in fact is experimental proof of a different growth rate
      by EMF dynamics, which there is ABOVE, you can infer that in a
      hurricane, where there are known DC fields of the same scale as in
      this Chinese experiment, with the ocean spray from 150 plus MPH winds
      containing all the ions needed and matching what was in the
      experiment. What then happens is asymetric changes where water vapor
      goes due to the growth rates--to the more symetrical forming cirrus.
      IOWs, diffusion pressure will cause a movement of water vapor toward
      the clouds NOT in the strong DC capactive field--meaning not in the
      eye, because the eye contains no cloud cover, no water to form a
      strong dielectric that would instead exist in the clouds. The eye is
      where DC fields have been OBSERVED. This is published, peer reviewed
      science. It is science I am not publishing, only science I am
      pointing out.

      Electrically, the storm is organized.

      Since I have shown that the largest storm on earth is organized
      electrically (and I can do it with each kind of storm, frankly), it
      is easy to then show that the biosphere by merely changing its
      conductivity can change weather and climate. I can then say things
      that you think are not coherent when indeed they are connected,
      logically. CO2 is clearly part of the ion dynamic in the elongation
      process, and changes conductivity with respect to roiling of oceans
      and gas exchange. CO2 has been correlated as to temperature. Yet John
      Daly has based his skepticism on climate without any mention, not one
      comma, period, or letter with respect to this EMF aspect of CO2 when
      it is clear that cloud dynamics is the whole mystery—and coupling
      mechanisms are poorly understood.

      Trillion dollar wars, reversals on ecology protecting measures,
      scrapping Kyoto--based on pure bad science that Daly supports. The
      worst kind of blunder, really--the blunder by omission. This may be
      the biggest blunder in the history of science, because of the lives
      at stake, on both sides of the debate. I would say key to that is the
      failure to look at the switch problem--that it isn't a linear
      progression but the feedback by history flips--and the root of that
      specific omission is the failure to couple the CO2 with the cloud
      behavior electrically. The SOI? Roiling and gas exchange—with much
      of that gas exchange determined biologically, wind direction and
      induction. ENSO? Changes of biological activity dampening climate
      with nutrients from upwellings leading to conductivity changes from
      the life itself. Stations of the week? Dependant on wind
      direction, and biological activity, not just the fact that warmer
      oceans are more conductive. Sea level changes? Also modulated by
      Gaia and modulated by large scale electrical and biological

      The good thing you could say about Daly, despite the bad science, the
      blunders, is that he may have broke the log jam by his approach, even
      if his conclusion was not correct. May he rest in peace, even if
      this wasn't the planet he wanted to live on.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.