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

Re: It's all electrical baby

Expand Messages
  • fredwx
    You said when currents and winds are sustained they induct a field that sustains cirrus, feedsback IR levels that in turn warm oceans and increases precip.
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      You said "when currents and winds are sustained they induct a field
      that sustains cirrus, feedsback IR levels that in turn warm oceans
      and increases precip.

      This requires, per Fleming's rule, that the currents and winds are in
      the east to west direction for electrical enhancement, where a vector
      of electrons rises upward out of the ocean."...

      The normal (non El Nino)flow of currents and wind in the tropics for
      the most part is from East towards the West. Are you talking about
      the normal conditions here? or did you mean West towards the East?





      --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscil
      > lationIndex/30DaySOIValues/
      >
      > http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
      >
      > Interesting w/ the SOI readings from flaring recently have been
      neg,
      > and yet even as SSTs around equatorial currents in the east Pac are
      > warming anomaly, to the south and north of that anomaly they
      remains
      > cold.
      >
      > What I am about to write is why this is absolutely the hottest
      place
      > on climate, right here, even as political headlines today are not
      > nearly as meaningful. If you can track, track, if you can see it,
      see
      > it. If not, STFU and listen until you can write something
      meaningful.
      > And as far as models predicting anything, like ENSO, they are all
      > crap because they start with SSTs and don't see the biological or
      the
      > electrical, especially how the biology modulates and becomes even
      > more important than what the sun is doing!
      >
      > I am simply going to do an compare and contrast two graphics after
      > making some assumptions. These are pictures, built on the same
      > dataset for anamolies. The assumptions I will make are based on the
      > well founded observations and Fleming's right hand rule. I will
      > assume that Lindzen/Fu's La Nina "iris" are electrical to these
      rules
      > that when currents and winds are sustained they induct a field that
      > sustains cirrus, feedsback IR levels that in turn warm oceans and
      > increases precip.
      >
      > This requires, per Fleming's rule, that the currents and winds are
      in
      > the east to west direction for electrical enhancement, where a
      vector
      > of electrons rises upward out of the ocean. OTOH, if the movement
      of
      > ocean current and winds are east to west, the resulting induction
      > gives a field of electrons moving into the ocean, against cirrus
      > behavior being enhanced, resulting in colder SSTs, low cloud IR
      > characteristics and so forth.
      >
      > The warmer a conducter as in the oceans, the better it will induct.
      > Think of it this way. Imagine you had an electrical generater, and
      > instead of having copper wires used for the induction, you used
      > something less conductive. Result? Less power output.
      >
      > In early January 1997 assume two cooling factors on the oceans in
      > general. One, we were post flaring min. While the flaring cycle is
      > not significant from a radiation standpoint, less than 2% change
      from
      > what I have read, it is electrically interesting, and enhances
      > cirrus, causing as much as a 20% change in heat energy from min to
      > max. Whether you agree with this as an electrical feature of
      flaring
      > or not, it doesn't matter--observation of warming during the solar
      > max is without serious contention. Two, we were post Mt. Pinatubo.
      > SOx emissions from volcanoes drop the phase change temp of cirrus
      and
      > hence reduce Gaia warming impacts. Again, whether you agree this is
      > an electrical feature or not, cooling and SOx have been observed
      and
      > go without serious dispute.
      >
      > Now, switch to early January 2002 to date. This was during,
      following
      > a second peak of the flaring cycle. There has been a significant
      > lapse since a volcanic event, and SOx emissions in the air have
      been
      > low.
      >
      > Okay. In Jan 97 there was incredible rains to California:
      >
      > http://water.wr.usgs.gov/flood97/
      >
      > This was from what is called the Pine-apple express. Now, go back
      to
      > the SST page:
      >
      > http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
      >
      > Go to January 7, 1997.
      >
      http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo_archive/data/anomnight.1.6
      > .1997.gif
      >
      > Note the La Nina conditions (low flaring, positive SOI) and the
      warm
      > SSTs running from the Hawaiian Islands to California. Also notice
      > that the Antarctica Southern Ocean's circumpolar contains warm
      > anomalies (which will figure in the El Nino that is to come). The
      > gyres in general at that time were colder. That means, per the
      rules
      > and assumptions I have given above, that the west to east
      > circumpolar, for instance, is going to have colder ocean
      temperatures
      > in general, and that causes LESS induction AGAINST cirrus, counter
      > intuitively WARMING SSTs. The west to east moving part of the
      gyres,
      > especially the N. Pacific, can also be seen to move AGAINST the
      > cirrus, electrically, LESS, producing the warm SSTs and then the
      > storms of the Pine apple.
      >
      > Conversely, with warmer oceans, this has electrically resulted in
      the
      > past few months that the Southern Ocean both melts glaciers and
      > produces cold SSTs from the cirrus behavior. And when these warmer
      > oceans get to moving west to east, as in off the coast of
      California,
      > they reduce cirrus strongly, cool SSTs, and dry things out.
      > California has received record low rainfall, consistant with this
      > notion.
      >
      > It's all electrical, baby!
    • fredwx
      You said The west to east moving part of the gyres, especially the N. Pacific, can also be seen to move AGAINST the cirrus, electrically, LESS, producing the
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 5, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        You said "The west to east moving part of the gyres,
        especially the N. Pacific, can also be seen to move AGAINST the
        cirrus, electrically, LESS, producing the warm SSTs and then the
        storms of the Pine apple."..

        You lost me here since the currents flow from off the California
        coast towards Hawaii (from the East towards the West)??


        --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscil
        > lationIndex/30DaySOIValues/
        >
        > http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
        >
        > Interesting w/ the SOI readings from flaring recently have been
        neg,
        > and yet even as SSTs around equatorial currents in the east Pac are
        > warming anomaly, to the south and north of that anomaly they
        remains
        > cold.
        >
        > What I am about to write is why this is absolutely the hottest
        place
        > on climate, right here, even as political headlines today are not
        > nearly as meaningful. If you can track, track, if you can see it,
        see
        > it. If not, STFU and listen until you can write something
        meaningful.
        > And as far as models predicting anything, like ENSO, they are all
        > crap because they start with SSTs and don't see the biological or
        the
        > electrical, especially how the biology modulates and becomes even
        > more important than what the sun is doing!
        >
        > I am simply going to do an compare and contrast two graphics after
        > making some assumptions. These are pictures, built on the same
        > dataset for anamolies. The assumptions I will make are based on the
        > well founded observations and Fleming's right hand rule. I will
        > assume that Lindzen/Fu's La Nina "iris" are electrical to these
        rules
        > that when currents and winds are sustained they induct a field that
        > sustains cirrus, feedsback IR levels that in turn warm oceans and
        > increases precip.
        >
        > This requires, per Fleming's rule, that the currents and winds are
        in
        > the east to west direction for electrical enhancement, where a
        vector
        > of electrons rises upward out of the ocean. OTOH, if the movement
        of
        > ocean current and winds are east to west, the resulting induction
        > gives a field of electrons moving into the ocean, against cirrus
        > behavior being enhanced, resulting in colder SSTs, low cloud IR
        > characteristics and so forth.
        >
        > The warmer a conducter as in the oceans, the better it will induct.
        > Think of it this way. Imagine you had an electrical generater, and
        > instead of having copper wires used for the induction, you used
        > something less conductive. Result? Less power output.
        >
        > In early January 1997 assume two cooling factors on the oceans in
        > general. One, we were post flaring min. While the flaring cycle is
        > not significant from a radiation standpoint, less than 2% change
        from
        > what I have read, it is electrically interesting, and enhances
        > cirrus, causing as much as a 20% change in heat energy from min to
        > max. Whether you agree with this as an electrical feature of
        flaring
        > or not, it doesn't matter--observation of warming during the solar
        > max is without serious contention. Two, we were post Mt. Pinatubo.
        > SOx emissions from volcanoes drop the phase change temp of cirrus
        and
        > hence reduce Gaia warming impacts. Again, whether you agree this is
        > an electrical feature or not, cooling and SOx have been observed
        and
        > go without serious dispute.
        >
        > Now, switch to early January 2002 to date. This was during,
        following
        > a second peak of the flaring cycle. There has been a significant
        > lapse since a volcanic event, and SOx emissions in the air have
        been
        > low.
        >
        > Okay. In Jan 97 there was incredible rains to California:
        >
        > http://water.wr.usgs.gov/flood97/
        >
        > This was from what is called the Pine-apple express. Now, go back
        to
        > the SST page:
        >
        > http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
        >
        > Go to January 7, 1997.
        >
        http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo_archive/data/anomnight.1.6
        > .1997.gif
        >
        > Note the La Nina conditions (low flaring, positive SOI) and the
        warm
        > SSTs running from the Hawaiian Islands to California. Also notice
        > that the Antarctica Southern Ocean's circumpolar contains warm
        > anomalies (which will figure in the El Nino that is to come). The
        > gyres in general at that time were colder. That means, per the
        rules
        > and assumptions I have given above, that the west to east
        > circumpolar, for instance, is going to have colder ocean
        temperatures
        > in general, and that causes LESS induction AGAINST cirrus, counter
        > intuitively WARMING SSTs. The west to east moving part of the
        gyres,
        > especially the N. Pacific, can also be seen to move AGAINST the
        > cirrus, electrically, LESS, producing the warm SSTs and then the
        > storms of the Pine apple.
        >
        > Conversely, with warmer oceans, this has electrically resulted in
        the
        > past few months that the Southern Ocean both melts glaciers and
        > produces cold SSTs from the cirrus behavior. And when these warmer
        > oceans get to moving west to east, as in off the coast of
        California,
        > they reduce cirrus strongly, cool SSTs, and dry things out.
        > California has received record low rainfall, consistant with this
        > notion.
        >
        > It's all electrical, baby!
      • fredwx
        You said Conversely, with warmer oceans, this has electrically resulted in the past few months that the Southern Ocean both melts glaciers and produces cold
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          You said "Conversely, with warmer oceans, this has electrically
          resulted in the past few months that the Southern Ocean both melts
          glaciers and produces cold SSTs from the cirrus behavior. And when
          these warmer oceans get to moving west to east, as in off the coast
          of California, they reduce cirrus strongly, cool SSTs, and dry things
          out. California has received record low rainfall, consistant with
          this notion."

          Could the warmer SST along the Antartic that are melting the ice
          cause in increase in freshwater overlying the saltwater and thus
          reducing the inflow of warmer surface currents from the north?


          --- In methanehydrateclub@y..., "pawnfart" <mike@u...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscil
          > lationIndex/30DaySOIValues/
          >
          > http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
          >
          > Interesting w/ the SOI readings from flaring recently have been
          neg,
          > and yet even as SSTs around equatorial currents in the east Pac are
          > warming anomaly, to the south and north of that anomaly they
          remains
          > cold.
          >
          > What I am about to write is why this is absolutely the hottest
          place
          > on climate, right here, even as political headlines today are not
          > nearly as meaningful. If you can track, track, if you can see it,
          see
          > it. If not, STFU and listen until you can write something
          meaningful.
          > And as far as models predicting anything, like ENSO, they are all
          > crap because they start with SSTs and don't see the biological or
          the
          > electrical, especially how the biology modulates and becomes even
          > more important than what the sun is doing!
          >
          > I am simply going to do an compare and contrast two graphics after
          > making some assumptions. These are pictures, built on the same
          > dataset for anamolies. The assumptions I will make are based on the
          > well founded observations and Fleming's right hand rule. I will
          > assume that Lindzen/Fu's La Nina "iris" are electrical to these
          rules
          > that when currents and winds are sustained they induct a field that
          > sustains cirrus, feedsback IR levels that in turn warm oceans and
          > increases precip.
          >
          > This requires, per Fleming's rule, that the currents and winds are
          in
          > the east to west direction for electrical enhancement, where a
          vector
          > of electrons rises upward out of the ocean. OTOH, if the movement
          of
          > ocean current and winds are east to west, the resulting induction
          > gives a field of electrons moving into the ocean, against cirrus
          > behavior being enhanced, resulting in colder SSTs, low cloud IR
          > characteristics and so forth.
          >
          > The warmer a conducter as in the oceans, the better it will induct.
          > Think of it this way. Imagine you had an electrical generater, and
          > instead of having copper wires used for the induction, you used
          > something less conductive. Result? Less power output.
          >
          > In early January 1997 assume two cooling factors on the oceans in
          > general. One, we were post flaring min. While the flaring cycle is
          > not significant from a radiation standpoint, less than 2% change
          from
          > what I have read, it is electrically interesting, and enhances
          > cirrus, causing as much as a 20% change in heat energy from min to
          > max. Whether you agree with this as an electrical feature of
          flaring
          > or not, it doesn't matter--observation of warming during the solar
          > max is without serious contention. Two, we were post Mt. Pinatubo.
          > SOx emissions from volcanoes drop the phase change temp of cirrus
          and
          > hence reduce Gaia warming impacts. Again, whether you agree this is
          > an electrical feature or not, cooling and SOx have been observed
          and
          > go without serious dispute.
          >
          > Now, switch to early January 2002 to date. This was during,
          following
          > a second peak of the flaring cycle. There has been a significant
          > lapse since a volcanic event, and SOx emissions in the air have
          been
          > low.
          >
          > Okay. In Jan 97 there was incredible rains to California:
          >
          > http://water.wr.usgs.gov/flood97/
          >
          > This was from what is called the Pine-apple express. Now, go back
          to
          > the SST page:
          >
          > http://psbsgi1.nesdis.noaa.gov:8080/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
          >
          > Go to January 7, 1997.
          >
          http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo_archive/data/anomnight.1.6
          > .1997.gif
          >
          > Note the La Nina conditions (low flaring, positive SOI) and the
          warm
          > SSTs running from the Hawaiian Islands to California. Also notice
          > that the Antarctica Southern Ocean's circumpolar contains warm
          > anomalies (which will figure in the El Nino that is to come). The
          > gyres in general at that time were colder. That means, per the
          rules
          > and assumptions I have given above, that the west to east
          > circumpolar, for instance, is going to have colder ocean
          temperatures
          > in general, and that causes LESS induction AGAINST cirrus, counter
          > intuitively WARMING SSTs. The west to east moving part of the
          gyres,
          > especially the N. Pacific, can also be seen to move AGAINST the
          > cirrus, electrically, LESS, producing the warm SSTs and then the
          > storms of the Pine apple.
          >
          > Conversely, with warmer oceans, this has electrically resulted in
          the
          > past few months that the Southern Ocean both melts glaciers and
          > produces cold SSTs from the cirrus behavior. And when these warmer
          > oceans get to moving west to east, as in off the coast of
          California,
          > they reduce cirrus strongly, cool SSTs, and dry things out.
          > California has received record low rainfall, consistant with this
          > notion.
          >
          > It's all electrical, baby!
        • pawnfart
          You said Conversely, with warmer oceans, this has electrically resulted in the past few months that the Southern Ocean both melts glaciers and produces cold
          Message 4 of 5 , Jun 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            You said "Conversely, with warmer oceans, this has electrically
            resulted in the past few months that the Southern Ocean both melts
            glaciers and produces cold SSTs from the cirrus behavior. And when
            these warmer oceans get to moving west to east, as in off the coast
            of California, they reduce cirrus strongly, cool SSTs, and dry things
            out. California has received record low rainfall, consistant with
            this notion."

            Could the warmer SST along the Antartic that are melting the ice
            cause in increase in freshwater overlying the saltwater and thus
            reducing the inflow of warmer surface currents from the north?

            +++

            There are two primary reasons why I doubt that the melting glaciers
            present a fresh water capping issue that "blocks" the Pacific gyre.
            This is consistant with the so-called conveyor belt theory
            popularized by Professor William Calvin of Washington University in
            Atlantic Monthly. The first reason is that the leading scholar
            pushing this theory, Dr. Warren B. White of Scripps in 1999 dropped
            his research following ENSO and all his papers were no longer
            online. Then he started to study cloud behavior in India, focusing
            on very complex cloud albedo models. In short, I think he too
            thought it was about clouds. The second reason is speed. The
            salinity wave moves very slowly if it moved just by diffusion and
            mixing. At the same time, he noted a coupling of pressures and
            salinity and temperatures, with interactions with the glacial ice,
            but like I said, he seemed unsatisfied with his own results in terms
            of explaining El Nino. The electrical explaination not only gives
            the speed required to match the SSTs, but also links temperture and
            salinity with pressures--namely because the more conductive the water
            by being warm the more cirrus are reduced down wind from there, so
            you will have these persistant alternating salty and warm and cold
            and diluted patches he describes--including the interactions with the
            ice sheets. IOW, electrical movements of cirrus explains his
            findings--poor man gave up on himself. I emailed him and urged him
            to join our yahoo group but he wasn't apparently interested or
            thought Gaia was valid.

            Another thing that has to be mentioned here. The Southern Ocean has
            some life from the "upwellings" but doesn't have river sources of
            biological materials. But if you think about, say, the N. Atlantic,
            it is the ocean with the most rivers--yet is warmer and more saline
            than the Pacific! Why? Gaia, of course. The rivers cause more
            water to be taken from the Atlantic--because of the biological
            material insulating the ocean bottoms.

            ==========

            You said "The west to east moving part of the gyres, especially the
            N. Pacific, can also be seen to move AGAINST the cirrus,
            electrically, LESS, producing the warm SSTs and then the storms of
            the Pine apple."..

            You lost me here since the currents flow from off the California
            coast towards Hawaii (from the East towards the West)??

            +++

            I would be lost too if not familiar w/ the gyres. Stommel is the big
            researcher here of import, but there is also Eichmann and others.
            One interesting scholar on this subject is none other than Ben
            Franklin, who discovered the Gulf Stream when investigating why
            English mails were coming late, and American fishermen explained it
            to him and he documented their comments. But later it was proved
            that the Gulf Steam was part of a 'gyre', meaning it had a circular
            path. That was done by Prince Ranier's grandfather, who put
            thousands of bottles out into the N. Atlantic in 10 languages with
            instructions to mail the letters inside the bottles! The bottles
            moved in a circle. Okay, here is the catch. While the gyre moves in
            a circle, it is more of a spiraling path. What we are really
            discussing is a bulge of about 4 feet mid ocean, off center west,
            with the current on the surface moving "downhill". Coriolis right
            turns this and you get a circular deal. BUT, essentially, half of
            the gyre is moving the downhill direction from the center. Hence,
            there is indeed a current moving generally SW, in reality we are
            talking about a quadrant of surface currents moving SE, with coriolis
            right turning that current. Get it? That is why the most cirrus
            reduction, in terms of current direction, is in the NW quadrant of
            the gyres, while the most enhancment is in the SE quadrant. That
            said, these respective quadrants are warmer to the NW and colder to
            the SE because of their paths from and to the equatorial waters . . .

            ===========

            You said "when currents and winds are sustained they induct a field
            that sustains cirrus, feedsback IR levels that in turn warm oceans
            and increases precip.

            This requires, per Fleming's rule, that the currents and winds are in
            the east to west direction for electrical enhancement, where a vector
            of electrons rises upward out of the ocean."...

            The normal (non El Nino)flow of currents and wind in the tropics for
            the most part is from East towards the West. Are you talking about
            the normal conditions here? or did you mean West towards the East?

            ++++

            This is more complex so that you have to break it down so you can see
            what we are talking about electrically. The gyres move currents per
            Coriolis in this right turning manner from the gyre's top center,
            which is off centered west. I suspect that this movement is
            conceptually from the fact that the tropics are warmest, and, hence,
            as the air expands it spreads from the tropics with a Coriolis
            twist. That gives you the gyres. But the equatorial is a
            countercurrent to the gyres tropical edges. Now, the coriolis
            movement also generally will move the warmest WATERS west. That is
            why the West Pacific is warmer than the East Pacific. BUT, the
            counter current moves still warmer WATERS . . . EAST.

            NOW, enter winds. The SOI. This is the kicker because it shows how
            it is electrical and not about SSTs and thermodynamics. If the winds
            are moving from west to east, or the SOI is positive, the counter
            current will be enhanced. That counter intuitively means SSTs in the
            EAST cool! Why? Because the counter current, with these warm,
            electrically conductive currents, with the winds moving west to east
            is going to be even stronger and this means induction AGAINST cirrus,
            and electrically, cirrus are reduced in there to the east. OTOH, if
            the SOI is negitive, or blowing east to west, the counter current is
            going to be reduced AND, please read carefully and slowly, the
            gyres, which are not just about the part that coriolis turned east to
            west along the North and South Equatorial, but about the movement SE
            from the North gyre and NE from South gyre, that coriolis turns.
            That means that an expanding pressure from the Eastern Pacific will
            blow AGAINST cirrus REDUCTION. It will heat up the El Nino waters--
            electrically, especially if sustained enough to alter the gyres
            surface movements.

            But what CAUSES the SOI? Enter the sun. Ion particles sorted by
            SSTs and winds derived therefrom--that move the IR balances and the
            balances of air pressures. That is why flaring patterns can be
            predictive of the SOI and hence ENSO itself.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.