Crichton review (cont)
- View SourceCrichton's book is the nation's #1 best seller. It's topic? What I
have been writing and researching about for 6 years here and
elsewhere. Unpaid. Tedious. And as many here have suggested,
But Crichton's view and many many others view is based on very bad
scientific rationale behind real concern. Example. He trashes, like
the late John Daly, our inability to predict ENSO, and then at the
same time extrapolates that because we can't predict ENSO, we can't
make any policy respecting CO2. BUT, it turns out that ENSO is itself
a modulation that has CO2 OUTGASSING from roiling, switching winds
and CONDUCTIVITY implications on clouds. In short, it's a position
where he uses his clout and artistic leadership to promote bad
Here's another example from the what he believes section of the book
"In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came
into existance, science has undergone a major revolution. This
revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics,
complex systems, chaos theory, catastrophe theory. It has transformed
the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these no-longer-new
ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of envronmental activists,
which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970s."
This section is particularly profound in the fact that
conceptualizations for gaia formed in the 1970s by writers like
Lovelock, were rejected in the following years because the green
house gas theory could not couple CO2 content with modulation or
feedback by mechanism. IOWs, there were, for instance, chaos then
chaos now arguments . . . and CO2 levels in the air over time would
rise or fall and the macrobiology would drive on. Plus when there is
a fire, the CO2 diffuses globally--so modulations are not local. That
gets to complexity, because the second law of thermodynamics
says 'storms' should move towards disorder--yet life and the
complexity of life comes from storms (Fred and I had a lot to say on
2LT). Crichton's just flat wrong.
It reminds me of discussion I have had with my friend Steve MacDonald
about the moon and weather. Before the baratropic emphasis brought on
by Boyle's law, many in England in fact looked at lunar patterns to
determine planting and so forth. These studies have been hit with
less value, sometimes called witchcraft. But again as it has turned
out, the moon roils the oceans, causes conductivity changes, and
roils the oceans in patterns the follow predictable rules of
classical orbit laws . . .
Crichton talks about the Little Ice Age (LIA) but does not reference
the Keeling Whorf paper on the moon and the LIA. He says on page 569
we have emerged from the LIA--and that therefore there is a natural
warming trend. But he doesn't suggest what the MECHANISM is of such
warming such that we are coming out of it.
"I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately
be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human
effect will come from land use, and that he atmospheric component
will be minor. (p. 570)."
This demonstrates his ignorance all the way around. The UHI theory
has major problems, as warming by region does not match the UHIs, and
the land use issue respecting albedo surface changes is very small
relative to the forcing by clouds. This, again gets back to
conductivity. If anything, surface changes have to do with hydrology,
ecology of land based systems (eg deforestation) that ultimately
impact the regional oceans and hence impact major conductivity
Crichton is critical of the GCMs--global climate models. He was
particular in his critical comments directed at James Hansen, stating
that his predicted model of warming was 300% too low over a 10 year
period. However, the this model is based correlations, not cause. The
problem is that humans have caused OTHER environmental conditions
that cancel the CO2 impact on outgassing and hence cloud behaviors,
mostly, in my informed view, on river changes. The examples of the
Dust Bowl and American river changes are well documented. Less
documented are changes to other international river systems, like
Three Gorge, and the implications the biosphere that this dam has.
Those implications spell conductivity changes, even if there is more
CO2 in the air for outgassing from roiling conductivity changes and
patterned cloud events.
The IPCC, which Crichton trashes, wrote a summary of peer reviewed
articles on climate extremes a few years ago. Unlike many, I actually
took the time to read it and then follow-up that reading with
research. One of the more interesting aspects of that paper was a
discussion of how small changes in ocean temperatures could result in
hydrate instabilities, because warm water currents meander in the
deep shorelines where the hydrates are found--and small changes can
lead to as much as 5 degree C. changes in ocean temperatures
proximate to the hydrates, sufficient to render them from solid to
gas. The result? Mudslides--and potential tidal waves. That's what
makes "The Day After Tomorrow" a more real assessment of what is
coming from human activity (at least as we currently course
politically and as the scientific community continues to make
fashionable, arrogant blunders).
On page 425 Crichton suggests tropical storm activity isn't
increasing. Not true. See also point 9:
(William Gray is a RWN). But what these articles fail to appreciate
is the interplay between the macrobiosphere and entropy and the
earth's magnetic field and that this is a dampened system. When the
trouble will start is when the modulations end. For instance, if the
hydrate fields off the coast of the Carolinas and in the GOM were to
completely outgas . . . there would be nothing, conductivity wise, to
hold climate patterns in modulation.
I would like to discuss a couple of links and get to some more
discussion on . . . the ghost in and out of the machine.
This is a link on sleep from last week's Time. You have to pay for
the story--it was actually about the same to by the hard copy.
Anyway, new research is reported on what it means to sleep deeply.
There is theory that the brain rids itself of damaging free radicals
during this sleep, and that low frequency EMFs cause what for lack of
a better explanation in Don's world I will just say basic simplicity.
My view? This is a fair weather behavior--because the Schumann
resonances is what fair weather would experience, by and large:
Complexity increases while there is consciousness--but the limits of
complexity are counterintuitive, and it is helpful to appreciate the
living earth context on where these fundamental structures evolved,
where sorted into the building blocks to our own minds and how they
function. That is, there certainly was glucose to power the ATP/ADP
and those ATP/ADP would not really be limited by time like all
creatures are when it comes to sleep. And glucose is seen even in the
tired . . . so certainly conversions from ATP could occur later in
time. But what appears to be occurring is a signal noise issue, yet
again. Appreciate what is ultimately occurring is the nucleotide
complex is coding, in a massively parallel way, an EMF feedback
response that modulates the earth's EMF. It's a calculation. If that
calculation cannot be communicated, there is no feedback.
The CHINA paper. The CHINA paper says that in a DC field asymmetries
form in freezing ion water. Those asymmetries, or shapes of freezing
ice, vary by the ion content as well as the field, and there is a
feedback where to some degree the field itself gets created by the
cummulation of ion containing cloud droplets. Therefore, if over time
there are too many free radicals, these radicals become more 'noise'
to modulating processes than the 'model' of a nucleotide complex, and
the asymmetries are no longer controlled, no longer capable of
feedbacking meaningful information, Again, the goal is to modulate a
living earth EMF, and the solution set is not perfect, not reality,
not truth, not reason, but rather a proximation of the solution--a
living range. The problem is dynamic, and the inputs are indeed
complex, chaotic (with boundary conditions). But the solution set is
highly determined, modulated, modeled. And free radicals don't give a
signal after they are produced. So there is indeed a a reason to
sleep to rid the mind of free radicals . . .
ADP/ATP. Essentially a chemical spring. And functionally, for shape
changing inside the cloud parasol for controlled asymmetries as the
freezing occurs. Again, the nucleotide complex move by size, mass,
charge and SHAPE.
REM sleep. This sleep the Time magazine says is important for
procedural memories. It differs from consciousness, of course, and
older people need less of it. I suspect that it was significant for a
specific kind of weather event modulations, probably frontal storm
modulations. The most complex kind of modulations had to come with
tropical storms. That's because the solution set had to modulate the
earth's magnetic field, and while fronts often will have strikes, and
these are powerful voltages, the most intense coupling between
ionosphere and earth, through the insulating barrier of the
atmosphere, is through the DC fields of a tropical storm. This is
where the nucleotide complex should have the most ability to feedback
a varied response, and where you would not have local fields with
Schumann resonances--as strikes are the stick that rings the 'bell'
of the larger DC coupling between earth and ionosphere, tropical
storms have there own local coupling transiants.
These huge voltages only last short periods of time. In fact, when
Isabel was a cat 5 it went only a few days at that intensity, and
that was considered off the charts. It went about as long as we can
Conservatism in the sense of let the decision stand--or in the Latin,
Our minds and body politic seems to take the same dipole, complexity
and simplicity. For lack of a better description, it's a model of
things, and on a basic level there are fundamentals that a the
modulations required, and that during Schumann resonances a pruning
toward simplicity caused, long long ago. And then in specific
settings complexity. So much sorting, so much complexity, that it
calculated all the way to our minds, the most complex things . . .
perhaps in the universe. Our minds during consiousness are incredibly
complex models of what is. But that complexity had and has a purpose--
to maintain a living earth.
- View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "David" <b1blancer1@e...>
> Very interesting and well done review, Mike. Thank you for doing
> and thank you for your work. I, for one, appreciate it.Crichton would note Lomberg's book but not, for instance, Lomberg's
discussion on cosmic ray flux. Which would get to your work.