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

Crichton review (cont)

Expand Messages
  • mike@usinter.net
    Crichton 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
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 27, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Crichton'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,
      unwanted.

      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
      science.

      Here's another example from the what he believes section of the book
      (p. 571):

      "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.


      Crichton wrote:

      "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
      patterns.


      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:
      http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2004/dec2004/
      (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.

      http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1009765,00.html

      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:

      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_ondas_shumman_2.htm

      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
      stay awake.

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

      Conservatism in the sense of let the decision stand--or in the Latin,
      stare decisis.

      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.
    • David
      Very interesting and well done review, Mike. Thank you for doing it, and thank you for your work. I, for one, appreciate it.
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 28, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Very interesting and well done review, Mike. Thank you for doing it,
        and thank you for your work. I, for one, appreciate it.
      • mike@usinter.net
        ... it, ... Crichton would note Lomberg s book but not, for instance, Lomberg s discussion on cosmic ray flux. Which would get to your work. Horrible.
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 29, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David" <b1blancer1@e...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Very interesting and well done review, Mike. Thank you for doing
          it,
          > 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.
          Horrible.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.