Is an Intelligent Designer Necessary?

Mike Doran responds to me:

quote:

---

The 'iris' paper in its concern with thermodynamics missed the fact that cirrus are moved, levitated by ions movements in displacement currents, and then they feed back heat, which causes yet more convection.

---

Then what makes you think this paper supports your claim about an electrical coupling between the ionosphere and the ocean? If it misses such a fundamental aspect, why did you claim it supported your assertion?You're the one who brought it up. You're the one who claimed it supported your assertion that there is an electromagnetic coupling between the ionosphere and the ocean.And yet, the paper says nothing about electricity and is concerned only with thermodynamics.So how does this paper support your claim? Why did you bring it up?

quote:

---

Increases in greenhouse forcing from outgiong longwave radiation spectra of the Earlth in 1970 and 1997 John E. Harris et a Nature (v.410, p.355, 15 March 2001)

---

But this paper, too, doesn't mention anything about electrical action or ions. How could it support your assertion when it doesn't touch on the subject at all?You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper, presenting papers that have nothing to do with electrical coupling and yet claiming they support your assertion.You're babbling, Mike.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

The Harris paper is offered to show the key forcing of cirrus.It is also EMF significant because the roiling of the oceans varies from La Nina to El Nino, and because induction patterns differ, and because biological conditions vary. Lindzen selected specifically La Nina conditions for this reason. Of course, SST patterns differ, too. All of these factors are ELECTRO mechanical to the behavor of cirrus and their movements in capacitive displacement currents between ocean and ionosphere.If indeed scientists had looked at the electrical consequences on cirrus cloud behaviors, we won't be having this conversastion, now, would we? Talk about deeper and deeper and babbling. That would be you. I am losing my patience with your inability to engage.[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 12-26-2003]

Mike Doran responds to me:

quote:

---

The Harris paper is offered to show the key forcing of cirrus.

---

But it doesn't say anything about electricity or ions, either. You're using one paper that doesn't talk about electricity as justification for another paper that also doesn't talk about electricity as if these two support your claim of an electrical connection between the ionosphere and the ocean.

quote:

---

All of these factors are ELECTRO mechanical to the behavor of cirrus and their movements in capacitive displacement currents between ocean and ionosphere.

---

Says who? None of your references indicate this at all. We only have your say so. And if you can't even do something as basic and simple as recognize that a paper doesn't support your claim, why should we listen to anything you say?

quote:

---

If indeed scientists had looked at the electrical consequences on cirrus cloud behaviors, we won't be having this conversastion, now, would we?

---

But I asked you for evidence and all you have done is show me a bunch of papers that have nothing to do with electrical connectivity.You may be right, but you haven't provided any evidence to justify your claim.Stop babbling, come off your high horse, and focus.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

In May of 1998 SSTs dropped off the coast of Peru dropped over 10 degrees F. in less than a month. El Nino was over.Above the ionosphere, a very strange thing occurred in the van Allen belts. The van Allen belts are ion belts -- ions caught in the earth EMF. A THIRD belt formed between the proton inner and electron outer belts.The marked SST or thermodyamicchange from El Nino was an electro mechanical change as well.The earth is alive.[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 12-26-2003]

Mike Doran responds to me:

quote:

---

The marked SST or thermodyamicchange from El Nino was an electro mechanical change as well.

---

And do you have any evidence for this other than your say so?And then, do you have any evidence that there is a causal relationship?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

[A]round May 8, 1998, there were a series of large, solar disturbances that caused a new radiation belt to form in the so-called slot region between the inner and outer van Allen belts. The new belt eventually disappeared once the solar activity subsided.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/...DIATION_BELTS/DI160.htmFor SST changes, see:http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/...climo_archive/anom.5.9.1998.gifhttp://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/..._archive/anomnight.6.9.1998.gifhttp://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.htmlElectrical change equates to a thermal change.++++++++++++++++++++++BTW, interesting sat pic relative to the drought in the west and the Colorado River poor flow's impact on the CONDUCTIVITIES in the GOC. Note large scale low freq ion waves will produce conditions which will NOT pick up dust. IOWs charge it and draw it to convective regions and cause it to be washed out, plus dust aids in cloud nucleation, so a minimal of Doran wave activity is going bring moisture to a region and end the dust. Gaia conditions in the GOC are obviously still quite poor. John McCain needs to take his "CAP" off:http://www.osei.noaa.gov/iod.htmlhttp://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.htmlThe best way to follow ENSO, the SOI, and EMF activity at the present time is to go to this link and watch how movements of the SOI and ENSO correlate to strike activity. Add solar particle monitoring, and it is really even more of an interesting watch:Lightningstorm.com[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 12-28-2003]

Mike Doran responds to me:

quote:

---

[A]round May 8, 1998, there were a series of large, solar disturbances that caused a new radiation belt to form in the so-called slot region between the inner and outer van Allen belts. The new belt eventually disappeared once the solar activity subsided.

---

But what does this have to do with anything? You're talking about something that is literally thousands of miles above the earth. How does this relate to an electrical coupling between the ionosphere and the ocean since the ionosphere is only about 100 miles up?

quote:

---

For SST changes, see:

---

Why did you choose pictures so far apart? Why not the ones on May 5 and May 12 in order to see the difference?http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/...climo_archive/anom.5.5.1998.gifhttp://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/...limo_archive/anom.5.12.1998.gifThere doesn't seem to be much difference compared to May 9.You still haven't shown a single document that indicates an electrical coupling between the ionosphere and the ocean.You're babbling.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You're talking about something that is literally thousands of miles above the earth. How does this relate to an electrical coupling between the ionosphere and the ocean since the ionosphere is only about 100 miles up?The van Allen belts are protons and electrons captured in the EARTH magnetic field. As we have seen from the math explored by the physics professor, above, the currents involved in solar activity is not enough to impact the earth's EMF. Therefore, the change that occurred has to do with feedbacks and cloud patterns that resulted from those feedbacks.Convection patterns, cloud patterns, not only separate out changes but the dielectric of water is much different than air. That means that the way that large scale low frequency ion waves starting from the ionosphere near the pole, which would have somewhat of an impact higher in the atmosphere where the isobars are drawn, would eventually cause, by amplification and the patterns to which I speak, bring a signal to the tropics that couples with the ionosphere. Because the ionosphere especially in the tropics is where charge seperations are most coupled with the oceans, it is there that the connection between ionosphere and magnesphere occurs. The mechanism of opposites attracting holds the ions in patterns relative to the ionosphere and the charge separations of convection--even thousands of miles away, going relatively positively charged lower ionosphere, negatively charged upper ionosphere, positively charged inner van Allen belt, then negatively charged ion belt.Once the cloud behavior has flipped in a bistable configuration, the winds begin to stir waters that have cummulated CO2, life, and cause river feedbacks of biological activity that switches the conductivities more toward the La Nina state. It is thermal in the sense that the cirrus clouds trap the heat and warm waters, or don't trap it and IR heat escapes out into space, but electrical in the sense that the cirrus cloud behavior is forced by it.While you appear to not be following, and certainly are offering nothing to refute the emperical evidence I offer, you continue to insult me with the "You're babbling" comment, like a beaten child. Therefore, our conversation is done.

Mike Doran responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're talking about something that is literally thousands of miles above the earth. How does this relate to an electrical coupling between the ionosphere and the ocean since the ionosphere is only about 100 miles up?

---

​

The van Allen belts are protons and electrons captured in the EARTH magnetic field.

---

Irrelevant. The inner Van Allen belt is 4,000 miles above the surface. How does this create an electrical coupling between the ocean and the ionosphere?

quote:

---

As we have seen from the math explored by the physics professor, above, the currents involved in solar activity is not enough to impact the earth's EMF.

---

Incorrect. On the contrary, it shows that it does affect the earth's EMF. Another belt between the Van Allen belts was created due to solar activity and disappeared when the event subsided.So how does this result in an electrical coupling between the ocean and the ionosphere?You still haven't provided a single piece of evidence that indicates that there is an electrical coupling between the two. In fact, you've even distorted the data that does exist...trying to claim that SST information months apart are indicative of something when you should have looked at the data from the days immediately surrounding the event.You're babbling.

quote:

---

The mechanism of opposites attracting holds the ions in patterns relative to the ionosphere and the charge separations of convection

---

How? How does this happen? How does the effect of a weak field 100 miles above the surface affect the field 4,000 miles and more above the surface?Be specific. Where are the studies, data, articles, or experiments that show an electrical coupling between the ionosphere and the ocean?Until you can show a direct, causal relationship between the Van Allen belts and the ionosphere (and none of the papers you have cited do so), then your introduction of the belts is nothing more than a non sequitur.You're babbling.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/...Winter02/Chem1C/Lect.10.htmTime to talk about the evolution of ATP in the context of Gaia.Again, the basic ID creationist argument is implausible complexity. IOWs, these chemical processes couldn't have happened by blind chance.The above link talks about the energies and chemistry of ADP. This is well known information and taught at every university and college and even in modern high school chemistry and biology classes. I simply want to talk about how it likely evolved, as opposed to implausibly "appeared" as the creationists surmise.Many basic physiological phenomena invoke thermal cycling. Biochemical regulatory mechanisms such as regulation by protein phosphorylation can be interpreted as methods for mimicking thermal cycling that were acquired later in evolution during the transition from living at a fluctuating temperature to living at a constant temperature.The heat engine. At a first glance the proposed similarity between heat engines such as the steam engine and biochemical objects may seem farfetched. In the steam engine water is thermally cycled: liquid water is heated in a boiler, and evaporates, turns into steam - a phase transition; the expanding steam performs external work; in the condensor the steam turns again into liquid water, the reverse phase transition. In gaia a protein is similarly thermally cycled, and undergoes a phase transition-like process as well (to an unfolded respectively more fluid state). The external work is done during the release of the synthesized ATP. In a steam engine the product, work that is done, is obtained at the outside of the system, while in early Gaia the product is formed within the system where ADP and phosphate are 'pushed together' to form the ATP that is later released.The process of producing ATP is in simple form about the burning of sugar. As a sugar burns, it gives off CO2 and water. The water is meaningless here because in a marine environment, salts diffuse with the water. The significant chemical is CO2 as a "waste" product. So, you have a protein that becomes more fluid and a surface tension brought about by CO2 as a bubble, and a ride that is about to occur--as the nucleotide complex rises to the surface where it becomes much more probable that the complex is swept up by ambiant winds to become sorted by the cirrus, and to feedback living temperatures and chemistries. The increase in the temperature of the complex and its surrounding gases would also operate to levitate the complex to the marine surface, so the heat engine has caused an increased probability of capture by the nucleotide complex to the surface--IOWs, hot air rises.The next question--where does the sugar come from? On the early Earth there was much more energy available in ultraviolet light than in lightning discharges. At long ultraviolet wavelengths, in which methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen are all transparent, but in which the bulk of the solar ultraviolet energy lies, the gas hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a likely ultraviolet absorber. Again, it should be pointed out that gases and lightning are tied together by surface tension properties which would rise up the nucleotide complexes to the marine surface to be swept by winds and then sorted by cirrus.Carl Sagan et al made amino acids by long wavelength ultraviolet irradiation of a mixture of methane, ammonia, water, and H2S. The amino acid syntheses, at least in many cases, involve hydrogen cyanide and aldehyde such as formaldehyde as gaseous intermediaries formed from the initial gases. UV light, of course, would be a fair weather occurrance, as it is blocked by clouds. So, again, we are talking about chemistry occurring relative to gas bubbles suspended on the surface tension of those bubbles,and having that buoyant force -- causing the complex to rise to the surface.Amino acids, particularly biologically abundant amino acids, can be made so readily under simulated primitive conditions. When laboratory conditions become oxidizing, however, no amino acids are formed, suggesting that reducing conditions were necessary for prebiological organic synthesis and, hence, the importance of electro chemical conditions. This is another hint at the importance of sugars burning . . . and electrons added via strikes to the soap, which could have produced a relatively basic pH.Under alkaline conditions, and in the presence of inorganic catalysts, formaldehyde spontaneously reacts to form a variety of sugars, including the five-carbon sugars fundamental to the formation of nucleic acids and such six-carbon sugars as glucose and fructose, which are extremely common metabolites and structural building blocks in contemporary organisms. Furthermore, the nucleotide bases as well as porphyrins have been produced in the laboratory under simulated primitive Earth conditions by several investigators. Therefore, all of the essential building blocks of proteins, sugars, and nucleic acids can be readily produced under quite general primitive reducing conditions.What ties them together is the behaviors of the nucelotide protein complex riding gas bubbles to the marine surface and coupling large scale roiling conductivity moments with specific cirrus behaviors, which are altered by the size, shape, mass and charge of the complex. Sorting occurs by effectiveness, and the parasol rains down to start the process anew, whereas ineffective parasols are likely damaged in the UV light of fair weather, or do not fall together with sufficient probability to self replicate, or do not feed back the strikes to present proper pH, and so forth.[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 01-03-2004]

KEY Link:Page Not FoundHowever, ice growth in a field is asymetrical, slower, and therefore does not give phase change energies to the air as effectively, nor trap heat. Hurricanes have cold cloudless high pressure areas above their eyes, and the reason is electrical.Once in the cirrus disk, the lack of strikes and strong dielectric of water allows cloud nucleation to take place smoothly and rapidly, giving phase change energies to the air and allowing the cloud mass to rise. This cirrus well traps heat underneath it, furthering convection processes.This gets to an ELECTRICAL change evidenced by the third van Allen belt that impacts cirrus along the equatorial--zapping them, elongating them.http://cfa-< !--UB Page not found - Harvard University -->Page not found - Harvard University">http://cfa-Page not found - Harvard University -->Page not found - Harvard University">http://cfa-Page not found - Harvard University< !--UE-->The most telling graph is page 11 as well as 573. If it is helpful, when in pdf there is a magnefying function you can use. Look at not were the correlations are on but where they are not. Start with the 1988-9 La Nina. That is where we are starting to talk about Lindzen's selected data.Anyway, what is going on is that solar activity is low, but the earth is hot. Why?Think shivering when cold. Upwelling in ENSO 1,2 causes increases of algae activity with the nutrients. That increases conductivities. Cirrus trap heat and the earth warms.It's fairly consistant across the board w/ the La Ninas.Now, of course the sun being more active is going to warm the oceans, the troposphere, BUT that warming comes with, eventually, a lack of upwelling and a depleted marine nutrient level, especially in the cloudless equatorial regions in the Pacific where river run off is not nearby. The resulting lack of biological activity drops the conductivity. Although warmer salt water is more conductive, the lack of life relatively drops the conductivity.The argument that Buliamus is making is that w/ the reduction of the solar output/field comes cosmic ray flux.The argument is just a postulation, they admit, because they don't know what is going on w/ inputs--how what is happening in space is taken on earth.What I am saying is these La Ninas are biological increases in conductivity that are "warmer" than they should be because of how they take the heat, not how they get it.During La Nina the western Pacific Equatorial Current is very warm, and biologically depleted. However, the ENSO 1,2 regions by Peru are very cold, w/ upwelling. That brings biological activity and chemical containment that is more conductive. Hence, along the equator in the Pacific, in the largest expanse of ocean, which is connected electrically to most of the day, solar signals of an electrical nature get organized powerfully by induction--the movement of the Equatorial Current, independant of the sun's signal brought to the closed isobars of the poles. This patterns cloud behaviors and traps heat. The earth warms despite the sun.Quantify the problem?http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/paper010723.pdfI like this Hartmann/Fu paper best. Check out figure on page 22 entitled Net Cloud Radiative forcing. This tells you how important cloud dynamics are in heat dynamics.Thankfully, the complexities of cloud heat retentions is simplyfied, visually, by IR loops. I use them all the time to seen how the EMF is altering cirrus when watching a hurricane real time.EO - 404 ErrorWhat you could really see this season in eye watching, with the sophisticated satellite imagary of today, is how the capactive coupling elongated cirrus formations, as described in the linked paper above, experimenting with cloud nucleation in DC feilds, and that has profound effects.1) Slows nucleation processes. That means slower to give phase change energy to air. That means moisture diffuses to other nucleating particles. Surrounding air relatively cools for lack of phase change energy.2) Elongated cirrus. This cirrus will not as effectively trap infra red heat. Air underneath relatively cools, and causes down drafts. Dropping air no longer in zone of phase changing, and melting ice takes more heat from air, causing down drafts. Elongated, its shape allows gravity and air friction to be decreased, and it falls faster, again, to where phase change temperatures cannot be reached. The droplets evaporate back into vapor, take phase change temperatures from the air, causing further dropping of the air mass.3) Dropping air seeks surface low. I have seen on IR not just the pictures of the 5 vortices of Isabel, but also tropical storms with very powerful point EMFs literally burning a path through the clouds toward the surface low, frame by frame. When the surface low and the electrical condition couple, storms explode. Each of the 5 vortices of Isabel contained elongated or no cirrus, and a down draft engine was created--very much like a tornado. This is the mechanism of the destruction of Andrew, BTW, same star shaped eye. Relatively speaking, the eye is free of clouds, and the symetry of the storm is kept.Let's start again, methodically, because this is still about the La Nina anomalies.You have during La Nina a very very conductive Equatorial current. Problem is that this conductivity is used against itself in terms of impedance, because the current moves from east to west, which inducts an electrical current relative to the large scale low frequency ion waves and coupling discussed. During La Nina the west tropical Pacific is warm anomaly and warmer salt water is more conductive. Likewise, the tropical east Pacific contains much life from the upwelling--so even though the water is colder, life provides a conductivity enhancing forcing.I now believe I have incorrectly described the anomaly mechanism, but not the anomaly or the biological basis for the feedback. What appears then to be going on is an 'iris', exactly as the Lindzen paper indicates, which cools the oceans by the same elongation mechanism on cirrus caught between a very strong capacitive coupling between ionsphere and ocean. Since the ionosphere is positively charged at its base, that coupling would require that the surface have a Negative charge. IOWs, that the induction feature of the east to west mode causes a downward current vector--which flows electons to the surface. If you take your right hand, orient it as required by Fleming's right hand rule,Get to know your pupils with our maths diagnostic assessment tool – Sumdogand assume that the earth's south pole is EMF north. Assume that the earth is below you on your lap, from the perspective of looking at the Pacific Ocean and that the south pole is closest to you and north away. Point your right hand index finger at yourself and your thumb back hooking toward your right hand. That is the orientation of the Equatorial current, which moves from west to east. Your bird finger points into the ocean, POSITIVE current flowing away from the ocean surface, rendering it NEGATIVELY charged.http://www.schooljunction.com/electric_current.htmNote that "[b]y convention, the direction of flow of current is taken to be the direction of flow of positive charge. The electrons always flow in direction opposite to marked in circuit diagrams."This creates a very powerful displacement current that elongates cirrus clouds coming into the Equatorial current.That is 'iris'.

You're babbling, Mike.What does any of that have to do with an electrical coupling between the ocean and the ionosphere?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Explaining cold wave in NEYahoo News - Latest News & HeadlinesStory on cold wave. It has been a problem several years running now.This is limited to the winter about this time and gets to some of the complexities of signal and noise as it relates to Milankovitch. Understand that the winter months have less electrical noise from convection and the signal of the solar electrical output is moved well to the closed isobars of the north EMF and there is little biological modulation to stop what happens at this time of year. We are at our closest distance to the sun at this point, even though the earth is tilted to the south. Our earth EMF is shrinking, and especially shrinking over the Hudson Bay node. That means that warming cloud patterns will not commence over that node as well compared to the past. Combine that with the fact that upwelling from the cold SSTs created by lack of cloud cover trapping heat that is not going to bring biological activity at this time of year, and the conductivities remain poor, and poorer still by the fact that colder waters are less conductive. There is also an interesting human part that is local. The St. Lawrence Seaway, much like the Colorado, is siphoned off, and especially siphoned off during the winter. Niagra Falls has almost no water running over it this time of year, because there are no tourists. The water is diverted into Canada for hydro power. Again, no conductivity increases from gas exchange related to river and biology coming down to the marine biosphere along the coast.Images: 1/10/2004 1/11/2003 1/11/2002 1/13/2001 1/11/2000 1/12/1999 1/13/1998http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/...ve/data/anomnight.1.11.1997.gif 1/13/1997We're Sorry - Scientific American[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 01-11-2004]

http://science-education.nih.gov/...ia/ritn/prions/fold.html PrPC spirals out of its tight helical shape into a more open structure. Enter Gaia.A deeper question would be why nucleotides act as the code source given a global life. IOWs, proteins with their ability to carry charges that are both negative and positive makes for proteins to have been independantly a modulating code of early cloud nucleation dynamics. And sorting could and certainly did, then, occur, independantly of nucleotide replication. My unlearned view is that there was independant co-existance, then of course a period of symbiotic--which eliminated both independants, and then the end of direct protein sorting as the dominate encoding partner (IOWs from protein to nucleotide to proteins vs from nucleotide to proteins as the variable). That is because the nucleotides began to mass produce the proteins before the replicating proteins could reproduce themselves.Which brings me to DNA and RNA--how the lines of the information of life is quite blurred--suggesting a meaning other than top down sets of relationships between the micro connections of these chemistries.The folding behaviors of proteins would have significant cloud nucleation meaning, and the fact that proteins would have folding relationships between each other independant of the sequence from DNA to RNA to protein is no surprise given the Gaia flexibility this may entail.Again, the idea is to have luck and then to multiply it when you are lucky. This runs quite counter to the idea that a cow or a sheep has a closing relationship to a human--and that therefore pathogens like a prion would pass by genetic relationship or not, but instead it becomes a question of just degree and speed of "replications", because the protein characterstics of folding or not--run back to a time before there were even cells, much less a common ascestor to humans or bovine animales.What's that have to do with the protein scum, the foam, on the ocean underneath the high winds of a hurricane?Some of these ideas on pre cellular global life and large scale low frequency EMF cloud modulations by nucleated parasols have resulted in absolutely explosive ideas, so fast that I am an idiot at recording them even though 100s of years from now no one will know that I am still attempting to be Mr. Mom, have a working better half, and now starting to do the 60 hour law practice. The ideas come, like the one tonight, and I am not trying to think about it. It was just after a long day, doing law stuff, and I am coming home no longer thinking about sexual harassment and seven middle aged clients abused by employer who I had met (no joke) and my mind starts to drift to what I WANT to think about, as opposed to have to think about to earn a living. I don't have the money or the time to do anything about it. I need someone with money and credentials and pull to publish. I WAS just trying to better someone in an argument. In 2000 I recall staring at cloud sat loops, SST anomalies, over and over, for HOURS, looking for patterns--to win that arguement. A crazy thing, but I hate losing. Once you saw the coupling was EMF based--it was all about refinement, and many of those refinements are . . . startling mysteries solved in different fields of science. Some readers would having me coming of as a master at the delicate blending of junk science with New Age wackism but I am really rather one more like Asomov, distrustful of mysticism and poorly stating a quantum leap born out of the first glimpses of a living earth.