Is an Intelligent Designer Necessary?

Mike Doran responds to me:

quote:

---

What is discussed is a COUPLING.

---

But you need to explain how and why they are coupled. You can't just claim that they are. The mere existence of two plates of opposite charge does not mean they form a capacitor. You need to show that they actually have an effect upon each other as is seen in capacitors.

quote:

---

Look, it is going to be difficult to discuss this unless you are with the climatology.

---

I know, but you haven't even begun to do that. You've simply tossed out terms thinking I won't understand them.

quote:

---

Please read it.

---

Where does it talk about electrical charge? It seems to be focused on temperature and humidity gradients. What on earth does this have to do with your claim?

quote:

---

Read that paper, understand it, and then come back to papa and we can talk.

---

Read as, "I don't understand what this paper means, but I have a hunch you don't, either, so my overinflated ego can be kept propped up for another day.""Come back to papa"?Now I know you don't know what you're talking about.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Come back to papa, if you REALLY don't know, is a joke about the underlying psychology of this discussion. And, frankly, I'm okay, you're okay. My father loved to teach me about science, and I don't have a son. Just because we are skeptical doesn't mean that we don't have voids in our lives that need to be filled. A person can be skeptical but not spiritual. I apologize if my tone was derogatory, but I said it more in jest about the conversation itself. You are an adult, no doubt, but a young one, who is having difficulting w/ the forrest for the trees. Certainly, when I point out a specific tree, you have difficulty attaching meaning to it that is part of a bigger picture, but I have, in explaining this to you, difficulty explaining trees in a manner that you would appreciate. At the end of the day, this is about communication, and the rivalry is only part of the format.Again, please read carefully the Lindzen paper. If you want I can link for you Lindzen's rival papers in his field, like the Hartmann/Fu UofWash papers, but that is not helpful. Lindzen's theory and mathematical extrapolations are NOT valid, but his peer reviewed data IS extremely important. What you have are pixals of tropical West Pacific ocean which are coupled with cloud behaviors, and then these pixals are associated with their SSTs. An inverse relationship to cloud weighted SSTs are noted, but what is NOT noted is the MOTION of the oceans, which are dominated by three currents, the North and South Equatorial, and the Equatorial. The Equatorial moves in the direction of West to EAST, whereas the North and South Equatorials move generally in the direction of East to West. Therefore, while we would expect warmer oceans to have greater heat content and produce more cirrus clouds, what emperically occurs is the cloud cover is greater in the cooler North and South Equatorials. Now, the Hartmann Fu studies show that overall warmer oceans mean more cloud cover, and frankly that has to do with the fact that their studies are confused by the fact that warmer oceans are more conductive, and perhaps confused by biological conditions not as present as in the Lindzen iris paper, but the data alone in the Lindzen paper is enough to prove my point.This is not a trivial discussion, BTW. Coupling is at the root of the climate debate, and most skeptics, including the IPCC, will point to the uncertainty in models respecting cloud behaviors, pretty much pointing directly at cloud behaviors. For instance, you can say that generally speaking warm tropical waters are required for a tropical storm to form and remained sustained, but you cannot explain why warmer SSTs exist WITHOUT a tropical storm. The condition and event are NOT coupled by current meteorology.Once it becomes clear that the better coupling occurs by considering large scale electro mechanical features associated with the clouds and the oceans, does the key living earth forcing appear. Read the paper, PLEASE. It will help us have a more intelligent conversation. In return, I will try not to make derogatory parent child insults--borne of frustration by your inability to get it.[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 12-13-2003]

"We're talking about electrical charge, not isomers. Isomers are electrostatically identical."To sum what we are discussing, DNA is a right-handed spiral, and except in very rare cases, exists only in that form. Amino acids, which make up the building blocks of proteins, similarly are utilized in only one form in biological systems. Isomers re electrostatically identical, but not electrodynamically identical. They differ by how they interact on larger scales, and by their quantum states, even by the way they interact with plane-polarized light. It is in dynamics that the sorting occurs, because the electrical and radiation sources remain relative to one another--upper air dynamics are a combination of electrical and radiative inputs. Just a basic search yeilded this:Just a moment...The environment differs, as do the tested isomers, but the result is the same--handedness is electrodynamically significant. At some point in early gaia history, the heat trapping impact of the cirrus clouds in relation to nucleoted droplets functionally resulted in sorting away the left hand of the nucleotides."We're still talking about electric charge, not isomers. How did the electric charge get sorted?"In early Gaia, it wouldn't surprise me that the left handed nucleotides may NOT have been sorted, but as the strands became longer, relative to a particular fixed state of electrical and radiative climate condition, the sorting occurred. I have to mention here, and I know I will be accused of changing the subject with you, but, heck, it is all meant to teach. There was a recent discovery of yet another large prime number. The solution came off a computer of someone participating with a group of computers. The software approach was called massively parallel computing. That is, a number of machines were used to solve the same problem. In gaia, a number of nucleotide replications were constantly occurring, but once a nucleotide was created that optimized the creation of an ice crystal that fed back infra red heat optimally, droplets created from that nucleotide pattern would fall back on earth, together, feeding back proper temperature, reduced radiation, and chemistry. Other sequences would be destroyed in the radiation of fair weather, or scattered reducing probability of recombination. Over time, this sorted out handedness."The large-scale structure of anything that could reasonably be called "dust" would have very little to do with the isomers and everything to do with the crystallization properties."There is no question that phase change energies, crystallization properties all are aided by particles. Indeed, it is in these properties that nucleotide containing droplets become a forcing over chaotic natural occurring convection events. Within that subset, come the DYNAMICS discussed above.We certainly are talking about electrical charges--and how the biosphere has evolved in relation to them--dynamically.Since the formation of cirrus increases convection and, therefore, increases local fields, there is a relational DYNAMIC between field and nucleotide particle.Finally, I consider myself to be educated in microbiology. I have taken coursework recently at UCLA to get better at the subject for my legal medical profession. I could dust off my Micro book and read to you the definition of "junk" DNA, but it is essentially nucleotide sequences that appear to have no function in a creature, and you can alter them and nothing happens to the creature. Nothing. There certainly are some who are researching how useless functional DNA impacts replication/evolution, but that is a red herring. My point is that these sequences did have a purpose, a long time ago, in the history of evolution, in regulating climate, and that largely answers what these sequences are, with some intermediary steps in between.[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 12-13-2003]

From another bb Bob and I were writing each other: Bob Richards - 02:09pm Dec 14, 2003 EDT (#500 of 501) What explains that a lightweight, two plate, film capacitor, when sufficiently charged, can lift more than its own weight when its negative plate is facing the earth? This is true whether in air or vacuum. I certainly don't disagree with this. In fact, the air/vacuum dielectric is about the same, with the vacuum capacitance 1 and air just over 1. Water's dielectric is about 80--which is what I am talking about with respect to clouds. What is this relation of gravity to electrostatic/dielectric fields? There is empirical evidence of something here. The relationship is described in string theory, which is not well understood at this point. But in terms of a force, negative charges repel one another and positive to negative attract. An object can have BOTH a charge and a mass by which BOTH forces operate, with or against each other. Therefore, in theory, if the earth's living earth system caused the metal core to have an extremely negative ion charge to it, and an asteroid took out that basic gaia function to modulate such a charge, AND, say, large dinosaurs had tissue which retained a large, net overall negative charge, the force of gravity would be countered somewhat by the opposing charges. From there, you may say that large creatures perished because there was a change in the earth electrical charge. It's an interesting idea, but not required to discuss the electro-mechanical movements of cirrus and heat trapping, and how early pre-cellular global life evolved. When T.T. Brown first tested his "electro-kinetic devices" for the US Navy, critics said the results were simply due to "ion wind." So the experiments were conducted again in high vacuum where the effects became stronger and more efficient! It weren't no danged ion wind, Bucky. Again, the dielectric of a vacuum is slightly closer to one than with air. There is a difference between a substance that is insulative to an electrical current and a substance that impedes a electro magnetic field. The reason I hesitate to use the word electro statics in this context is statics are fixed positions and flux line analysis, and these charges are moving and part of dynamics. This is some very complex stuff, no doubt, but sadly the ignorance of the public has been well played in the ecological and religious discussions that the merging power of fascism and the religious right has utilized. Ignorance is bliss. Or should I say, ignorance is blessed, Of course, just like any time the secret government, whether NSA, ONI, or some other acronym we've never yet seen, does research and development, Brown, the reseacher, did no development. Development is always layers deeper than the research. The only thing that visibly came from his work in the '50s was the defunding and shutting down of the electro-gravitation studies at the many US universities where they had existed at the time. I, again, don't see anything special about this subject--except that if you are good at this topic you get a job for microsoft, and the biologists and the climatologists have NO GOOD SCIENTISTS learned in this ken applying their craft to earth sciences. BTW, as I believe Mike has presented, of course atmospheric layers and sectors bearing different values off charge, conductivity, and dielectricity, can be viewed as virtual capacitors and capacitive circuits. Change any of the values and you must view the chemistry involved as dynamically changeable.

You're babbling, Mike.Where does the paper you're talking about mention electrical charge?Be specific.

This is what Bob said, it words better than mine:"The term, "static," in this case only refers to a charge remaining in place where no current draws it off. This is of course in a perfect Q environment, which only ever is for purposes of discussion, as no perfect Q exists anywhere in physical electrical realities outside perfect vacuums, which are not hanging around on every street corner. Of course, within the atmosphere, or any fluid environment, all is in flux, and all parts are part of the whole.
In both T.T.Brown's experiments, and in Michelson and Morley's, results were affected slightly by the positions of the moon, sun, and some "unknown" siderial force. We're all in this together."The charges become important, particularly, in tropical storms, as far as cummulated charges over the eye, in patterns that vary by the dielectic relative to air containing either water or air. The charges then form relational patterns . . .Strike data provides fractal evidence of this, along with the cloud cover patterns resulting . . .I think what will happen during the tropical storm season starting next June in particular, I will show you real time what the cloud patterns look like in the GOM in relation the cloud and wind patterns, and you will see emperically what I am talking about--with your own eyes.

No one said that the design had to be or had to remain perfect. What we now observe as suboptimal is the result of time & mutations.We don't need to identify the designer in order to in fer one. All we need is evidence. The evidence for a designer exists. Newton saw it, as did Kepler. Aristotle & Socrates saw it, as did Galileo. Today Behe & Dembski see it and discuss it.

How do you figure that?You come upon two piles of my coins. One pile I simply scattered to the ground. The other pile is an exact duplicate of the first, each painstakingly put by hand into place.How do you tell the difference? Remember, one of these piles has purpose, and the other does not. One of these piles is designed, and the other is not. According to your logic you should be able to tell the difference.I say you can't, because design isn't a property of things. Design and purpose are only in the heads of designers, not objects.I say, you can't infer a designer from an object because there's no way to detect design.

You're still babbling, Mike.Where does the paper you're talking about (Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?) mention electrical charge?Be specific.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Let's take your accusation--that I babble. Interesting word, really. As in Tower of Babal. The way the story goes, a huge tower was built by a culture which soon lost itself to too many languages and confusion.Perhaps the most dogmatic, conservative RELIGIOUS poster here is you, which is kind of ironic, given all the vitrol of New Age bent on me when you don't speak the language of science you espouse. But unlike you, I have actually been in such a church, and left it just as quickly as I would reject a religion which only goes back a few thousand years and stays there, when I can reason with science and go back to the big bang, and perhaps before then, and even reason into the future, and apply that kind of history to tell me about what is happening today. And I certainly know more now who I am, because I understand my parents in real way, and that helps me to be me, not a story about a tower where many languages were spoken.Read that paper Lindzen paper more carefully. Lindzen's statistical math is nothing but a strawman--he missed the boat AFTER IT DOCKED RIGHT ON HIS NOSE.The fractals are involved here. A fractal (n.) is a pattern possessing a fractal (adj.) geometry, one characterized by self-similarity across scales and a non-integer dimensionality. For instance, look at a section of coastline from orbit, then look at the same section from an airplane, and then from standing, and then with a magnifying glass. The pattern you'll see is approximately the same across those differing scales. If you try to measure the length of a section of coastline, you get real number that varies depending on how you measure it. Different aspects of clouds are described, with fractals. For instance, a sat can take a picture of water vapor, infra red heat escaping to and seen by the sat's camera, visual light, and so forth. Lightning is likewise about fractal math. Are the pixels in Lindzen's iris paper fractals?
Are the pixels from a NASA SST anomaly sat picture fractals?
Do you SEE a fractal, or do you calculate it, or both?[More related math:
What is a dampening variable?
In the case of simple harmonic oscillators, a dampening variable will cause the oscillations to decrease in amplitude over time, i.e. you have poles in the left-hand plane, and the system is "overdamped."
What is a chaotic oscillator?
A chaotic oscillator is one whose behavior is chaotic (i.e. extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, non-repeating output (which may or may not have a bounded region of activity in phase space), etc.
What is a periodic oscillator?
If an equation contains a dampening variable, is it periodic or a chaotic oscillator?
If it is damped, and the damping coefficient is sufficient to cause the output to fall over time, then no, it is not going to be chaotic. ]What is occurring in the Lindzen paper is that the data set is an AREA divided into, I beleive, 1 or 5 degree squares. It's been a few months since I re-read the paper, so perhaps you could correct me. Then there is a correlative analysis between cloud wieghted SSTs and cirrus. What is found is an inverse relationship. Lindzen uses this to argue that because CO2 as a GHG isn't directly causal of cloud heat trapping, that the global models are fundimentally flawed. His "math" is calculative from this extrapolation, but his coupling and underlying basis is fundimentally flawed. That is, what he ignores about his data is that underneath the clouds that he is examining, in the fractal data, are differences in trade winds and ocean currents. These currents are called the North and South Equatorial, and the Equatorial. Because these currents move relative to convection where there are large charge sepapartions, there are local transiant EMFs that cause that movement to have a meaning of impedence. Impedance's MATHEMATICAL formula is a product of resistance, INDUCTION, and capacitance. We have covered capacitance a little already with respect to tropical storms.Lindzen's paper started a firestorm . . . or should I say, a straw storm of controversy, because the climate community is stuck on Boyle's law and CO2 as a GHG and they have failed to appreciate that CO2 is an ELECTRICAL forcing via gas exchange. Here are some of the more important papers (the actual papers):http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/paper010723.pdfhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/IRIS_BAMS.pdfhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/BAMS_1459_rev.pdfhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/BAMS_1459_Append.pdfhttp://www.atmos.washington.edu/...is/1423Lindzenrevised.pdfHere is a sum of the 'iris' debate, but it only sees the strawmen and sums the papers, does not show the data from which the controversy arises:http://clouds.eos.ubc.ca/~phil/courses/eosc582/iris.htmlI would mention that these researchers, who have great CVs but no EMF or biology kens, fail to look at the biosphere or EMFs for reasons why they are seeing what they are seeing. Therefore, like the CO2 as GHG warmers and skeptics (who usually point to clouds), they fight each other's strawmen.And keep in mind that impedance (Z) when it considers resistance, it would be impacted by SSTs (sea surface temperatures, also always expressed as fractals) because the warmer the ocean the more conductive, and by life containing algae patches, because life contains chemistries, including with algae, iron, which is more conductive than just ocean. Therefore, the tropical West Pacific, which is biological depleted during La Nina, and warm anomaly during La Nina, should, absent induction, cause a DIRECT relationship of cloud weighted SSTs to cirrus. Instead, there is an inverse relationship, which could only be explained by Fleming's right hand rule.What is a vector? How are Maxwell's laws expressed?A vector is a quantity comprised of a magnitude and a direction, usually expressed as the product of a scalar magnitude and a unit vector.Maxwell's equations are expressed as four differential equations, with vector math.I want you to think about the following:I ASSUME that the earth EMF is forced by global cloud patterns and separations of charges. Oh, yes, I know there is a double dymeno, but if you look at the earth core as metal, no matter if there is some induction inside of it that causes a constant field, there is still the wire coil concept around a metal bar model.Since the tropical West Pacific contains the warmest and largest expanse of waters, where the strongest storms and charge separations exist, the earth EMF is oriented with the local transient fields in the west tropical Pacific. Therefore, applying Fleming's right hand rule, you can calculate relative impedance by direction of current.The iris proves, emperically, both my assumption about the earth EMF AND how cirrus are forced electrically.http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/~strange/JATP_paper/JATP_2.htmlBurke et al. [1992] have reported the detection of keV electrons and large electric field transients above a hurricane. These various observations all suggest that at the Earth, at least, lightning may couple to the ionosphere. The coupling mechanisms are not well understood, but it seems probable that "capacitive coupling" through the displacement current my drive conduction currents within the ionosphere [Hale and Baginski, 1987]. In light of these observations, it is possible that the "wide-band" bursts detected at low altitudes in the Venus ionosphere could be due to direct coupling between lightning and the ionosphere.http://www.sec.noaa.gov/tiger/Today.htmlReal time data.Most interesting part of the article that quotes the above passage is it is about a study of Venus, which, of course, is lifeless. Its electromagnetic field is extremely chaotic behaving. While the double dymino/metal core is blamed for earth stability, I submit that the modulation or dampening of the global electrical circuit and doing so to modulate temperature and chemistry is the significant pattern of note.It is easy to say that these observations lack rigor. But Crick and Watson discovered DNA before it was mapped, and certainly, with these kinds of observation data sets and more information about strikes on the surface, that with cloud cover pictures and vapor pictures and infra red pictures, the connections between solar input of radiation and particle wind, biosphere condition, and real time cloud and electrical pattern behavior, some of these kinds of comments will fall away.http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1992/dbs9201.htmlBTW, I mention induction relative to the Lindzen paper. Induction via the earth EMF has been measured in currents, as above, relative to the earth EMF. However, the currents generated (impedance values) are small. However, this is where the very short duration and power of the fields local to convection activity, when you keep in mind the dependancy of the field and impedence, where the pattern follows the earth EMF as its forcing, that the induction pattern emerges relative to Fleming's right hand rule.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Over at a climate bb, another poster from Australia questions whether ion particles from the sun are sufficient to move cirrus clouds. He writes:"My old book puts the average charge of the earth at about 10^5 Coulombs. That is all that you have to play with. The average power available from atmospheric charge (according to my book) is 6 x 10^-5 W / m^2. A tiny little 60 microWatts / m^2!"My question is what do you think the charge would be at 300 to 500 mb--where cirrus are located, from flaring. Also, to what degree do these charges range or vary there? Say, when the magnesphere is unstable, stable?"Solar wind speed : 664.5 km/secSolar wind density : 5.3 protons/ccSolar wind pressure : 3.9 nPaIf i=q/t, (where i = current in amps, & q = quantity of electric charges in Coulombs) and if the electrical charge on a electron is about 1.602 x 10^-19 coulombs, then we need to move: 1 / 1.602 x 10^-19C per sec to pass 1Amp of current. Or 6.24 x 10^18 electrons must be moved for a current of 1A.The solar wind protons moving in a "tube" of space of csa 1cm^2 @ 664. km/s above would only move 5.3 x 664.5 x 1000m charges, or 3.52 x 10^6 protons. If this calc. is correct, then you should be able to see that this is a *very small* movement of charges/second compared to even 1 ampere.The response from the physics professor at the bb--where I linked the comment about the capacitive coupling and displacement current:The displacement current is the uncharged electrical current which passes between the plates of any capacitive elements in order to maintain field continuity--in particular the H field flux. The electrical current is uncharged by virtue of being composed of equal numbers of virtual positive charges moving one way and negative charges moving the other.The stored energy of a capacitor is 1/2C*V^2.Therefore using these numbers we get 41.65 *10^8 watts for the stored energy in fair agreement with your 5.25*10^8 watts. (I believe farads and ordinary volts are both MKS units.) Ooops I see, I've got energy and you had power. Therefore my units are watt x time. From the time constant of 1.64 second, I would guess that the total stored energy is 41.65 *10^8 watt-seconds. This equals 41.65/3600/1000 = 11*10*2 kw-hrs.I confess I haven't looked up the earth's capacitance; but your expression worries me. The relevant capacitance for the fair weather current should be the capacitance of concentric spheres separated by the distance from surface to (roughly) tropopause--yet you have no separation distance. So if for the distance in your formula we use area/separation instead of R, we would increase the capacitance by 4*pi*radius/separation +AH4- 12 * 4000/6 +AH 8000.The problem, as discussed in the US thread, is the low currents of the solar wind and the low induction values of the oceans relative to the earth EMF. Both small values would indicate that cirrus in the data in Lindzen's iris could not be levitated by direction of current, nor would the electrical aspect of the solar wind have any kind of a forcing impact on cloud behaviors. However, if the local convection was patterned after the earth EMF because it CAUSED the earth EMF, than there is more than enough energy to move the cirrus. Further, while convection generates huge voltages (and we are now learning of sprites, elves, blue jets, which are very short duration but high voltage "shorts" from cloud to ionosphere), in the regions colder regions of the earth, where the magnetic poles exist, conditions (at least now) are so cold that convection does not occur so well and charge separations do not exist from convection. Therefore, when the solar signal comes in, even at a low current, it is a relatively significant varience. If this "signal" from the sun, then, is AMPLIFIED, because as the cloud cover is created in pattern, the water begins to impact the dielectric values of the capacitive coupling and then it begins to be part of a process whereby charge separations occur, that small signal from the sun can have a real meaning for weather, which differs from the radiative aspects of the solar flaring cycle. Further, that low current correspondes to the closed isobars of the earth EMF, so that what current is brought in from space comes in largely in the regions where it is cold enough to lack convection to cause noise against signal. Therefore, as patterns of warming move toward the poles, they distort any signal from space, and if a cold spell of weather, fair weather, heads to the poles, it allows, with a solar event, a very clear signal to emerge and produce feedbacks that would warm things up again via cirrus trapping heat. In short, it's about signal noise, and the biosphere's modulation of this electro mechanical dynamic.This problem has been looked at emperically by strike data and cloud data--which is fractal in nature, and comports to this theory:Lightningstorm.com[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 12-17-2003]

You're still babbling, Mike.Where does the paper you're talking about (Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?) mention electrical charge?Be specific.

quote:

---

Read that paper Lindzen paper more carefully. Lindzen's statistical math is nothing but a strawman--he missed the boat AFTER IT DOCKED RIGHT ON HIS NOSE.

---

You're the one that cited the paper, Mike. And not just once but twice. You're the one who begged me to read it because, to quote you (Message 44): So which is it, Mike? Do you agree with the Lindzen paper or do you disagree with it? You're the one that quoted it. You're the one that claimed it supported your point. And now you're saying that it gets it all wrong.Don't you even remember your own argument?You're babbling, Mike.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

It's clear that from your question and comments that you have not read the paper. Lindzen's paper is a peer reviewed presentation of DATA. That data shows an inverse relationship of cloud weighted SSTs to cirrus. IOWs, the warmer the ocean surface, the LESS the cirrus, the less the warming, heat trapping feedback of clouds. He then takes CO2 as a GHG and extrapolates it out, decreasing the feedback of warming CO2 as a GHG to cirrus clouds trapping heat. What those skeptical of his paper have done is looked at other data sets in other tropical places and did not find this inverse relationship. They then argue that CO2 as a GHG increases cirrus cloud cover, and amplifies that heat trapping of CO2.The Lindzen data, however, shows that it is an ELECTRICAL forcing at play, that overcomes the pure thermal coupling between SST and cloud behavior. That is because in the warmest waters there is an ocean current, the Equatorial, which overcomes the thermal enhancing properties of the SSTs and produces, instead, using the conductivity jump by temperature, to aid in induction of feilds AGAINST cirrus formation.Please read the paper, so we can have an intelligent conversation.

Mike Doran responds to me:

quote:

---

The Lindzen data, however, shows that it is an ELECTRICAL forcing at play

---

Why? From what I can gather, Lindzen is talking about heat.Where does Lindzen talk about electricity? You're the one claiming that he's supporting your argument, so where does he do it? Where is the connection between Lindzen's humidity/thermal description and your electrical one?Stop babbling and answer the question:Where does the paper you're talking about (Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?) mention electrical charge?Your mere assertion that it does is insufficient.It's your reference, Mike. Where does it say what you claim it says?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Of course, there is no direct mention of EMFs in the paper. Don't be dishonest. It's just a discussion between you and me and it is difficult enough material to teach without you being a terd bucket. The extrapolation he makes is nonsense, and data is found elsewhere in the tropics that shows the different results. BUT, his data is what it is, an inverse relationship between cirrus heat trapping and cloud weighted SSTs. There is nothing different about the oceans there except the direction of current--which has electrical meaning per Fleming's right hand rule. Take your pointer finger and point it at me in the screen and then at yourself. Not how the bird finger flys 180 degrees? That's what the current does--what happens to impedance."...researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in
Massachusetts are reporting that the tropical Atlantic Ocean is much
saltier than it was 50 years ago, according to the Boston Globe.Right out of the headlines:"Scientists have assumed that global warming would speed evaporation
in parts of the world's oceans but had no direct way of measuring the
change. In the Woods Hole study, published in the journal Nature,
scientists estimated that tropical evaporation rates increased 10
percent during the last 15 years."Earth warming at faster pace, say top science group's leaders / Statement by American Geophysical Union's council warns temperature change is real and human-causedSomeone on another bb asked me about the physics professor's calculations. I was shocked that this particular poster could ask such an intelligent question. Understand his calculations occurred a couple of years ago when I pondered the solar wind as by itself causal of changing the earth's EMF in any way:This is an uncoupled mechanism as currently understood, when it is in fact coupled to CO2 and human activity as it pertains to the hydrology, to the biosphere.Today, a clever poster asked:"So.. did you ever correct for the separation of surface--->troposphere?Sounds like the professor was politely telling you he doubts it will fly. "Actually, what he is writing is consistant with the physics problem that the solar wind would not be thought of as directly causal of the earth EMF. That's the problem he is incorrectly trying to solve. The real problem that is to be solved is the capacitance between ionosphere and cloudtops, with a displacement current involved. Further, his calculation is for an average value over the entire earth, with again, the idea to solve the problem of the earth EMF as caused by the solar wind, not for a isobar directed value. The key is in the signal amplification -- which BTW does not preclude that the solar input be meaningless to the earth EMF. If you look at the strike data, for instance, you see that central Africa is the most struck, and then there is a fair weather zone over the Sahara and the Med, and then moderate strikes over Europe, The US is struck pretty well in tornado alley. These kinds of patterns are going to create an input into the earth's currents--which create its EMF, independant of what the sun does, but the sun's input via the isobars will then direct the solar wind. Again, it then becomes, by the amplification and connection between cloud behavior and EMF waves, an issue of signal and noise from convection. That PATTERN, then, created by the earth EMF in the context of the solar ion SIGNAL, as it is amplified and extends from the EMF poles, becomes determative of the earth EMF itself.http://www.ocean.washington.edu/...gnetics/history/hist.html"More recently, Albert Einstein, described the problem of the origin of the Earth's magnetic field as being on of the five most important unsolved problems in physics. "To repeat, Einstein wrote one of the greatest mysteries was the world's EMF. It was a difficult problem for a physics mind--because the problem was biological.So a modern physics professor writes about the solar wind, which, BTW, is measured in detail by a modern sat. That wind is like a current, and my down under friend calculated its current meaning, because his world of electronics and patterns that are required are measured this way, and concluded that the earth EMF could not have much of a practical current to make the worlds EMF. The physics professor addressed that same problem and came up with the same answer. The wrong answer, but a telling set of calculations solving the wrong problem.Visually, the answer to the problem is simple. If the earth's polar EMF starts out with random oscillator from the solar winds, that are certainly not powerful enough to change the earth EMF, but OTOH are strong enough to aid in cirrus levitation. Patterns are increased by the capacitive dielectric of water compared with dry air, as displacement currents are deflected. Further toward the tropics, charge separations occur from convection patterns that are aided by the signal's amplification, and eventually the signal becomes so strong that it is able, via tropical storms, to couple with the conductive ionosphere the conductivities on the oceans.The whole thing is implausable to the physics, mathematician, because w/ the biosphere modulating resistances, it's modulated wave--a variable resister in an amplifier circuit, which reacts to changing external inputs. And to the biologist, it is incomprehensible physics and math.The earth is alive.Figure out the chaotic inputs that the global biosphere modulates and then live within the strictures of the biosphere. In the bible it was called stewardship. Today, it is called sustainable existence.One of the top ten new scientific discoveries for this year (no one has heard of me yet) was stem cell research were the stem cells turned back into sperm and eggs.This is a regression into early gaia, very close to the pre cellular state, where nucleotide sorting evolved into cells, and the cells in sum began to impact the conductivity of the oceans.Science is a double edged sword. We must use it to survive, not kill each other, and in this case, survival requires the whole of the biosphere to aid us.Now, if the earth EMF cannot be from above, than, of course, the argument is that it must be from below. But double dymino models all behave chaotically and cannot be modeled, and in fact this has led to some interesting metaphors coming subconsciously from the physics community:Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic FieldBut in fact the behavior is a modulated, or dampened one.The earth is alive.+++++http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2003/dec2003/Here is Dr. Gray's latest forecast. As he correlates, and fails to COUPLE a mechanism between cloud behaviors and forcing, and incorrectly assumes the forcing of CO2 from fossil fuels operates as a green house gas and not a gas exchange conductivity enhancer in the oceans, he fails to appreciate climate change for what it is:The 1995-2003 Upswing in Atlantic Hurricanes and Global WarmingVarious groups and individuals have suggested that the recent large upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity (since 1995) may be in some way related to the effects of increased man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). There is no reasonable scientific way that such an interpretation of this recent upward shift in Atlantic hurricane activity can be made. Please see our recent 21 November 2003 verification report for more discussion on this subject.[Site Not Configured | 404 Not Found]Right off the bat, for instance, the QBO is a wind of ions created by the earth's EMF (apply Fleming's LEFT hand rule). There is much more to follow.

Mike Doran responds to me:

quote:

---

Of course, there is no direct mention of EMFs in the paper.

---

Then why did you claim that this paper supported your assertion of electrical coupling between the ionosphere and the ocean?

quote:

---

Don't be dishonest.

---

That's my question to you. You were the one that brought the paper up. You were the one that claimed it supported your assertion.And yet, I can't find a single thing in it that even remotely indicates electrical activity of any kind.So why did you bring it up?Stop babbling and stick to the subject.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!