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

Rasmus E. Benestad (cont.)

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    Rasmus E. Benestad wrote: I appreciate the explanation about capacitance, after all it is a while I completed my first degree in physics and electronics... I
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 11, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Rasmus E. Benestad wrote:


      "I appreciate the explanation about capacitance, after all it is a
      while I completed my first degree in physics and electronics..."

      I see from Mr. Benestad's background page he is WELL qualified to
      discuss electrical fields and cloud microphysics:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=50

      I brought up the subject of capacitance not to teach him about
      capacitance, as he is the greater expert on this ken, but rather to
      describe to him what aspect of the cloud dynamics were forced by the
      displacement currents. I learned electronics in the US Army reserves
      years ago and did get into my MOS (job) with an ASPHAB of 145, so I
      am no idiot with respect to basic electronics and electrical field
      theory. My profession is legal medical, and it has well qualified me
      to have this discussion with Rasmus Benestad--I was built to have
      this discussion with him because there is a biological and chemistry
      aspect he is not yet concerned with. I also am a few units short of
      a math degree and had college chemistry and a couple years of college
      physics and circuits and all of that--but my mother was sick just as
      I was about to graduate, and so it took me longer to finish school
      and I went into another direction as a major and then for graduate
      school--law. But enough about me.

      Rasmus E. Benestad wrote:

      "Actually, I think the issue of electrico-dynamics veers off the
      subject of the post, although I get Mike Doran's point that he
      doesn't believe so."

      It's not a question of faith. As a lawyer, I am comfortable making a
      weak argument--especially if well paid. But I am also a man who
      appreciates for free a substantive, scientific discussion, and the
      proper question is whether or not CO2 from human activity is causing
      more tropical storms. The evidence is overwhelming, despite what
      William Gray and others may say, that tropical storm activity is
      enhanced. The mechanism of the main debate is whether CO2 as a green
      house gas causes increases in heat content in the oceans, and whether
      that has a secondary impact of increasing storm intensity. With this
      theory I disagree, but I disagree from the standpoint of MECHANISM,
      and I have both theoretical and empirical proof to support my
      position. And papers to support this position, including papers in
      the mainstream journals. I also know from my training what is a
      poor argument, such as an appeal to authority logical fallacy, or
      what is an argument based on logic and science. At the same time, an
      expert can explain a phenomenon in accepted ways--and let me
      RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST that where the subtle connection between human
      activity and fossil fuels and electrical forcing is in the OCEAN, not
      in the cloud microphysics, and that the couplings that power, or do
      the main 'work' on the cloud droplets do so without flash or bright
      lights. The ocean chemistry is not mentioned, and that is where the
      complexity of human activity lies.

      Rasmus E. Benestad wrote:

      "Yes, I also did my masters in cloud micro-physics some years agao
      [sic], and if my memory serves me right, electrical phenomena play a
      role in cloud mircophysics. But not in the way Mike Doran outlines,
      unless the view has changed completely. I think if it had, we would
      read about it in Nature and Science."

      I again respectfully and strongly disagree with this assertion, both
      in terms of what is asserted and what the peer review state of the
      science really is. Some of the papers are not main stream but some
      ARE. Perhaps the leading paper on the subject by Professor Tinsley
      respects cloud nucleation processes--but such electrical features are
      not going to limited to tropical storm genesis:

      http://www.utdallas.edu/dept/physics/Faculty/tinsley/Tin_rev.pdf

      And ALL of the papers are recent long after most of us have
      graduated. The technology to read strike pattern and cloud IR outputs-
      -such as to 'see' both electrical input and cloud microphysics
      behavior are now there to verify what I am writing about. Example--
      the five mesovortices of Hurricane Andrew--what makes for such a
      baratropical order? I submit you cannot explain Andrew without
      describing the static fields associated with the 5 mesovortices.

      One big paper, again, that I have referred but no one wants to
      discuss indeed does come from a country which doesn't carry the same
      respect that Nature in America does, but there are often papers that
      take years to see what the implications are. The scientists doing
      the research are life scientists trying to deal with keeping living
      tissues alive in freezing conditions, and so what the impact of a DC
      field is on an ice particle may be critical in keeping say lettuce
      very cold but not freezer burned. Again, the China paper:


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

      "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. However, the strength of the electric field used in our
      experiments was only 1/400 of the 10 to the 5th kV/m. 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 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."

      The DC fields in the eye of a tropical storm that have been OBSERVED
      have been greater than the fields in this paper that caused visible
      microphysics differences. These fields are not from the flash and
      glow of thunderstorms, nor even near these events, but rather at
      distances where these energies are dissipated in coupled static
      fields.

      But to the connection and the mainstream, yes, Nature paper:

      http://www.bbsr.edu/Labs/co2lab/abstract/batesetal1998c.html

      Bates et al have found that a hurricane causes CO2 to come out of
      solution in the oceans as a hurricane passed. It stands to logic and
      science and reason that as CO2 in the air increases, so does it in
      the oceans, and then this impacts the way carbonation leaves the
      oceans when a surface low passes. This, I assert, is the cause of
      the jump in intensity of tropical storms. The mechanism is an
      increase in conductivity at the surface where the depressurization
      and roiling takes place.

      Again, the mechanism is that the CO2 runs from a dissolved form in
      the oceans in the top several feet, and bubbles to the surface, where
      it then runs back chemical equillibriums--in the context of the
      coupled fields which impact pH and these equillibriums, to increase
      the ion count relative to the salt ions already in the oceans. Carbon
      dioxide moves to carbonate, carbonic acid and bicarbonate and back to
      carbon dioxide and then interacts with the salts in the oceans. This
      is the reason that no matter how warm the tropical oceans are, a
      tropical storm MOVES. It essentially runs out of gas per the Nature
      Bates et al paper to cause the SURFACE conductivities required to
      couple electrical fields with the ionosphere and impact and organize
      cloud microphysics.

      "I'm open for new ideas and do not write off the idea of electrical
      phenomena playing a role in climate - hence a discussion on the
      subject together with various curiosities such as Aurora, Elves,
      airglow, Sprites,the Van Allen belts, and Lightening in my
      book "Solar Activity and Earth's Climate" (2002; Praxis/Springer)."

      But this discussion does not include the chemistry of the oceans
      relative to the fields created by these phenomenon, nor the
      macrobiosphere's role in creating a living earth in such a context.
      And I am a self taught student of tropical storms--where these DC
      fields most intensely couple--due to the conductive mediums of ocean
      and ionosphere and the ability of the cloud patterns to hold
      charges. Again--what does Dr. William Gray's QBO wind have to do
      with a 150 mph sustained wind? Mmm? And it DOES! Why? Clue—it's
      an ion wind that relates to the state of the global electrical
      circuit.

      "But at this stage, there are still speculations so I think that a
      simplified view involving capacitance, the sea and the ionosphere can
      be discussed further on the methanehydrateclub site and not under
      this post. Thanks for your input Mike!"

      I started out writing a book six years ago on climate change, and
      this is where I have come. To think that at one time I was a GHG
      warmer. You know, truth has a way. A great American writer named
      Mark Twain once said that the writing begins when the editing
      starts. I would start from Hurricane Andrew and describe the 5 meso
      vortices, which just happen to have a relationship where static
      fields could be set relative to water content and dielectric
      meaning . . . and how Andrew occurred following Mt Pinatubo, and what
      impact SOx would have on the cloud microphysics and the asymmetries
      created in those physics, per the China paper, in intense DC fields
      between the oceans and the ionosphere . . .
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.