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

CO2 and electrical forcing

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    At some point in time the public stopped believing big tobacco. We are no where near that level of public opinion about big oil and coal and fossil fuels and
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 25 9:13 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      At some point in time the public stopped believing big tobacco.

      We are no where near that level of public opinion about big oil and
      coal and fossil fuels and climate. Indeed, I wouldn't even call it a
      vast right wing conspiracy. I would call it people looking and
      finding a means before a justification, and then sensing any
      justification works. The problem for the fascists, unfortunately for
      them, is their spokespersons themselves make the case for human
      activity as a concern. They who the right has anointed to make their
      argument for the environmentalists--they have fooled themselves.

      And most of it is done on the internet. A few years ago it was John
      Daly--but he died of a heart attack. There was also Theodore
      Landschedt from Daly's site--he also died within months of Daly. So
      where would the right go to satisfy themselves now? After all,
      the 'truth' should come out of anyone's month, no?

      This isn't about the truth, that's for certain. Daly, for instance,
      argued against the green house gas warmers that the SOI determined
      climate. Of course, little did he know that he too was making the
      case for the environmentalists--as the SOI is decidedly about out
      gassing differences between Tahiti and Darwin, and, therefore, shows
      CO2's conductivity meaning exactly as I have been teaching.

      This is what a good lawyer will tell you. Never ask a question you do
      not know the answer to. In Daly's case, he attempted to show that CO2
      as a green house gas was not a climate forcing, and his answer was
      the SOI. Again, SOI proves the environmentalist's position! It's a
      blunder for an advocate. It's like this. Say you just murdered
      someone, and a detective comes up to you and says, you killed victim.
      And you say, I did not kill victim with a knife! And the detective
      says, how did you know he died from a knife wound? See? It's
      stupidity!

      No where is the fraud more clear than at a website called Climate
      Audit, where Steve McIntyre writes a blog and the faithful from the
      right come. They have had no place to go since John Daly died.
      McInteyre is essentially a mathematician, making for the most part a
      poor argument. Everything is a spin, a justification of the fossil
      fuel culture, and his argument is easy to summarize. Climate was
      random, climate is random, climate will be random, burn fossil fuels,
      because it doesn't matter. He does particularly well if he can show
      that the green house gas warming isn't going according to the vast
      left wing conspirators, and then he goes straight into his theme.
      Nothing varies too much from it.

      As you all know by now, my view is that the earth was alive, the
      earth is alive, let's keep it that way. And that the MO of this
      living earth is large scale electrical features that impact cloud
      mechanics. And as McIntyre is neither trained in life or electro
      magnetical fields, he is easy to expose.

      His latest gem is located here:

      http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=319

      He is arguing his math, in this case some basic statistics, to make a
      point about the character of the warming on a smaller scale than the
      whole earth. He works really hard to show this one picture, which
      essentially is his argument above in picture form. What the picture
      shows instead of global warming everywhere is that the main changes
      are in specific areas:


      http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-images/r2.jpg

      Let me say this before I destroy his point. The so called 'skeptics',
      as you may appreciate, are in my view nothing of the sorts. They are
      very very poor advocates of a position that is political. And the
      closer they come to basing their 'arguments' on facts, on science,
      models, statistics based on facts, the closer they come to providing
      us not with a skeptical view of another's perspective, but rather,
      providing us with their theory. Only, as I shall show, just like John
      Daly's SOI shows the conductivity meaning of CO2, so too does this
      graphic.

      The outcome is actually quite simple and predictable. If you increase
      CO2 to the climate system, it is dissolved in the oceans in greater
      amounts. It is then, therefore, more available with low pressures on
      the ocean surface to come out of solution with the lower pressure and
      the roiling winds that come with such a low. The gas first comes out
      of carbonation and rises to the ocean surface, where it equilibrates
      back into ion form in the context of the electrical fields involved
      and resulting pH, and that then decreases conductivity with the
      surface low, and cloud microphysics are organized accordingly.

      The problem is that the Pacific Ocean is relatively less saline in
      the significant location of the Pacific high. So that the signal of
      greater CO2 will make will be most directly on the Pacific Ocean. The
      Atlantic, for instance, will have high levels of salt ions to aid its
      conductivity without CO2's input, and CO2's input will be
      less 'felt'. Specifically, I look at the impact of the Pacific High
      as the most changed with higher CO2. That then causes the tropical
      jet to run farther north.

      Same type of thing occurred with the 30,000 dead of a heat wave in
      Europe--which occurred with an algae bloom in the region, that then
      impacted the jet behaviors there. There were also flooding events in
      Europe associated with that bloom. See:


      http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen2/jet.html

      Especially this figure:

      http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/chorro3Eng.gif



      The drunken looking trees, diseased and tipped over, and melting
      tundra in Alaska, and the thinning ice in the Arctic all prove this.
      But then what happens thereafter is the jet comes south over the
      CONUS, and causes increased thunderstorm levels there. And the
      increased strikes also power the Pacific High changes in cloud
      microphysics per the China paper, and it becomes a seasonal feedback.
      That's why in combination with the microbial bloom along the west
      coast last year you had a string of so many days without
      precipitation to go along with all the hurricanes Florida had last
      season. That high strike levels then powers the ITCZ in the Atlantic,
      along with the Bermuda High, and you essentially warm it up by
      compression, air flow and changed cloud microphysics. You increase
      the intensity of tropical storms, but not their frequency.

      That change then follows the warm and electrically conductive Gulf
      Stream and Europe relatively heats up. In short, the warming meets
      what I call an event horizon seen condition. That is, you can make
      certain or easily determined predictions based on the phenomenon
      being within the horizon. For instance, during the day the sun comes
      out and generally it warms. There is a daily event horizon that
      factors into a discussion on climate and weather. Likewise, the green
      house gas warmers argue such a horizon, based on climatology. My
      arguments are based on the idea that if you increase the CO2 content
      of the oceans you increase the capacitive couplings between
      ionosphere and ocean that impact cloud microphysics. This follows
      easily Coulomb's law, for those who can track with that law. It is
      easily repeated science--you can repeat it in a lab or with the
      oceans. And now, with the help of a McIntyre's fraud, it is repeated
      with statistical significance.

      I found 6% more ions over the tropical Atlantic compared to the
      Pacific Ocean where the Pacific High exists. See for yourself:

      http://www1.fccj.cc.fl.us/pacrews/salinity.gif

      from:

      http://www1.fccj.cc.fl.us/pacrews/oceans2.htm



      http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oceans-03e.html
      http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_rcurry
      _pr.html
      http://www.oceanconserve.info/articles/reader.asp?linkid=27877

      http://www.oceansatlas.org/servlet/CDSServlet?
      status=ND0yMzkyJjY9ZW4mMzM9KiYzNz1rb3M~













      Ionosphere to space Capacitive Coupling above Eye (not to scale):

      ............................-..+..- electron van Allen belt
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................+..-..+ Proton van Allen belt
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................-..+..- Upper ionosphere
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................+..-..+ Lower ionosphere
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      .......................***o*o*o*** Cloud level
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................-..+..- Ocean surface
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................+..-..+

      Layer electrically below ocean surface

      Okay. Let's see if I can explain from another standpoint. Currents
      won't move from the depths, back and forth, between surface, because
      the static field from the ionosphere and above causes a forcing
      against anything from a vertical standpoint. There is OTOH no
      horizontal forcing other than electrical resistance.
      Another set of pictures:

      T=1

      -+++++++++ Ionosphere
      *................. Clouds
      +__________ Ocean Surface
      -++++++++++Just below surface

      T=2

      --++++++++ Ionosphere
      **............... Clouds
      ++-------------- Ocean Surface
      --++++++++ Just below surface

      T=3

      +--+++++++ Ionosphere
      .**.............. Clouds
      -++-------------- Ocean Surface
      +-++++++++ Just below surface

      T=4

      -+--+++++++ Ionosphere
      * .**............. Clouds
      +-++------------ Ocean Surface
      -+--+++++++ Just below surface

      T=5

      --+--++++++ Ionosphere
      ** .**............ Clouds
      ++-++---------- Ocean Surface
      --+--++++++ Just below surface

      T=6

      +--+--+++++ Ionosphere
      .** .**.......... Clouds
      -++-++-------- Ocean Surface
      +--+--+++++ Just below surface

      Notice how the charges just below the surface and the coupling from
      the ionosphere only allows the pattern from the clouds to move along
      the surface. The atmosphere and ocean are not like a pure
      capacitor. There are horizontal fields above and below, and the
      clouds move in between these fields. In order for the fields to be
      maintained, it requires 'work'. It requires a number of ions to move
      horizontally, especially important is the horizontal movement along
      the surface of the ocean, where conductivities then substantially
      matter. Included in such calculas is SSTs, which have about a
      percent drop in resistance per increase of degF in SSTs. In sum,
      there is a vertical field component that current movement that is
      horizontally forced by a changing horizontal field dynamic must push
      against to overcome. That requirement of a counter-force IS
      resistance. The static field is so significant vertically compared
      to the conductivity of the salt water that almost all of the current
      moves through the surface with the coulds. The proof is in the
      pudding--cloud behaviors react accordingly, and according to the
      cloud microphysics behaviors demonstrated in the China paper.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.