Here's an interesting methane news release:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb206309.php

Great work, Mike.  Thank you!

One could be forgiven for snoozing a bit.  Solar and geomagnetic
conditions have been pretty boring.  But, such is live near the bottom
of the sunspot cycle.  That is not, however, to say that nothing will
happen until we start into Cycle 24, which should be in 2007.  For
whatever reason, there is a tendency for some big flares to come at
the bottom of the cycle.  That won't be happening in the forseeable
future, though, as things are quiet tonight.  There are two small
sunspot regions visible, but neither has the potential of generating a
significant flare at this time.  The Earth will be moving into a
high-speed coronal hole solar wind stream soon, so there is a chance
of some increased activity over the next few days.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 30
SFI : 96
A index : 4
K index : 1

Solar wind speed : 367.3 km/sec
Solar wind density : 8.1 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 1.6 nPa

IMF : 6.0 nT
IMF Orientation : 1.8 nT South

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : A3

Conditions for the last 25 hours :
No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

Forecast for the next 24 hours :
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to remain at very low levels.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be at predominantly unsettled to
active levels throughout the period. Isolated minor storming may be
possible on 3 and 4 April. The expected elevated conditions are due to
a recurrent coronal hole high speed stream.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

Steady goes the race.  This year was not generally (climate speaking)
significant for solar activity, but specifically the solar reports
during the tropical storm season are important at weather based levels,
IMHO.  Peak and valley times, however, I will start to be more
concerned climatologically speaking.

So sorry not interacting so much directly this time of year.

Hope you are well.


--- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "David" <b1blancer1@e...>
wrote:
>
> Great work, Mike.  Thank you!

The Earth is emerging from a high-speed solar wind stream coming from
a coronal hole.  This one actually managed to touch off some activity,
and aurora were spotted in the high latitudes of Canada and Alaska, as
can be seen here.
http://www.spaceweather.com/aurora/images2005/05apr05/hall1.jpg .
It's been awhile since we've seen any aurora!  There are three sunspot
regions visible at thr present time, although none appear to have the
potential for producing a significant flare.  However, there is yet
another coronal hole that is rotating into an Earth-pointing position,
and we should start seeing the solar wind speed pick back up along
about the 8th.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 49
SFI : 88
A index : 9
K index : 1

Solar wind speed : 386.1 km/sec
Solar wind density : 1.8 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 0.4 nPa

IMF : 3.0 nT
IMF Orientation : 1.2 nT South

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : A6

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

Forecast for the next 24 hours :
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be very low to low.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled on 08 and
09 April. On 10 April, quiet to active conditions are expected due to
the effects of a recurrent coronal hole high speed stream.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

** G-1 Geomagnetic Storm In Progress **
** Aurora Watch In Effect **

The Earth has moved inside of a high-speed solar wind stream coming
from a coronal hole.  G-2 geomagnetic storm condition have been
observed within the last 24 hours, and G-1 geomagnetic storm is in
progress.  No aurora sightings have been reported yet, but my guess is
there will be.  G-1 geomagnetic storm conditions are expected to
persist over the next 24 - 48 hours, with the activity level dropping
off on the 14th.  Only one sunspot region is visible on the solar disk
tonight, and it doesn't look to have the potential to generate any
significant flares.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA suspot number : 17
SFI : 88
A index : 8
K index : 5

Solar wind speed : 511.1 km/sec
Solar wind density : 9.4 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 3.4 nPa

IMF : 8.3 nT
IMF Orientation : 0.6 nT North

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : A9

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
Space weather for the past 24 hours has been minor. Geomagnetic storms
reaching the G1 level occurred.

Forecast for the next 24 hours :
Space weather for the next 24 hours is expected to be minor.
Geomagnetic storms reaching the G1 level are expected.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be very low to low for the next three
days (12-14 April).

Geomagnetic acctivity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be mostly active for the next two
days (12-13 April) as the high speed stream from the coronal hole
should continue to drive activity. There is a chance for isolated
minor storm periods during this time as well. Conditions are expected
to subside to unsettled with occasional active periods for the third
day (14 April).

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

Here is a scary take on the planet-as-capacitor; and a definitive
application being ignored by orthodox cosmologists. Students of sand
and saltation may also be piqued.

< They talk about a "rain" of ions on Europa and a "wind" of charged
particles from the sun. But moving charged particles are elsewhere
better known as an electrical current."
"Electrically active plasmas behave as though they were alive. They
self-organize into complex forms that twist and turn and change states.
They're mathematically messy. They're anarchic. But conceptually
elegant."
"The theory of gravity is surprised by each new discovery of space
probes and space telescopes. Each surprise has to be patched with
another ad hoc excuse [usually blamed on "magnetism"]. EPP accounts for
the many surprising features of the cosmos with a single coherent
theory. It can often point to a lab demonstration or to a computer
simulation--or even to an ancient petroglyph! * -- that mimics the
newly discovered form. What EPP may lack in mathematical elegance is
more than made up for in generality.>
-  http://www.dragonscience.com/view/question.html

???????????????????????????????

Massive dust storms on Mars have meteorologists  scrambling for
explanations. Is it solar heating, or electricity, that powers these
storms in the near vacuum of the Martian atmosphere?
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050324dustmars.htm
<...it appears that the dust is being jetted upwards rather than being
blown along the surface. This ... explains how dust is raised
efficiently many kilometers into the thin air and suspended for a time
electrostatically. The role of violent vortices on the leading edge of
dust storms is particularly clear ... examination should show that
these tornadoes** form preferentially on high points and the sharp
edges of craters or escarpments.>
[**c.f. Thornhill's electric tornado of solar filaments at
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=s9ke93mf]

a frightening thought:
an electrical epoch
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050412scarface.htm
[* I'd never appreciated just how accurately the Tibetan dorje maps the
lines of magnetic field - until I saw it in the context of this
home-page.]

The application and associated prediction:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050325blueberries.htm
'Martian "Blueberries" in the Lab' -Mar 25, 2005-
Plasma physicist uses electric arcs to replicate the [previously]
mysterious spherules on the Red Planet.

????????????????
???????????????????????????
Back in the concrete bunker:
The Berkeley high school kids say my new
      'Humbolt State' t-shirt
   ["HUMBOLDT" in kelly on mustard yellow;
sans cannabis referents]
is "dumb".
These ...  most amazingly arrogant creatures
       on the flat earth;
each demands their humiliation be accomplished with only the most
pointed spit, produced anew every time they have some cyclic
neurotransmitter surge...
These mammals will bear watching... if not
corrective containment and coercive pruning.
++++++++
The suggestion of a decadent corrupted ruling class seems elegantly
ideal for that purpose.____________________
LEO

The most significant measure of cycling CO2 is seen between El Nino
and La Nina. And water vapor is modulated in the actual changes of
electrical state between these two phases.

The same measure was seen in Hurricane Felix in a paper published in
Nature by Bates et al. That is a big paper from where I study. What
happens in my view is a hurricane low causes CO2 to come out of
solution and ride to the top or skin of the ocean where it converts
back to ion form--making the surface relatively more conductive for
brief periods of time. For that reason, I look at CO2 as an
electrical forcing, not as a GHG--the clouds are the key 'green house
gas', plus the clouds have the kinetic and chemical meaning.

I look at the CO2 like water as to my sweating when I am hot. Water--
is it my body water? Is it water in the air? Where living and non
living meet, what we are talking about is effective feedback loops.
Likewise, when you talk about methane hydrate fields, you are talking
about a biogenenic storage source of carbon, which life converts to
CO2. These hydrate fields, for instance, add climate stability to
regions because CO2 content is pretty much promised even if a roiling
storm causes outgassing in the short term.

There is a climate bb where my name is still being mentioned in
frustration FIVE YEARS later over methane hydrates, and it all
started by the observation that hurricanes were a lacking in the
thirties with the Dust Bowl.

One of the most important things that you learn as a student of
the 'bar' is when a problem is given to you--solve that problem. The
way it is put is that you must focus on the call of the question. It
has been said that the most brilliant answer--which fails to address
the question asked, gets zero, while the incorrect answer . . . to
the question, gets at least some credit.

It has been some time now, but years ago over there at this bb, I
noticed that changes in hydrology impacted tropical storm behaviors.
I deduced from these circumstances that hydrates impacted tropical
storms, and, indeed, they do. Just the mechanism was incorrectly
stated back then and a discussion of hydrate instability lead to a
discussion on superstorms, which was seen as too much Art Bell.

Presently, my tropical storm forecast is the best in the world, and
that excellence stems from answering the question asked--no one is
calling me Art Bell when I call hurricanes months before they occur.
You can go to the
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/methanehydrateclub and see that
forecast on March 31, 2005 for this year.

Anyway, on superstorms I will say this. The mechanism isn't phase
change energies or methane as a GHG--this has been explored. And even
if the answer is an incorrect postulation--it was answering the
correct question. The mechanism is more dynamic and kinetic and
biological in that the hydrates are biologically metabolized to CO2--
where gas exchange in regional oceans impact storm behaviors. Florida
gets hurricanes between the hydrate fields of the GOM and off the
Carolina coasts for a reason.

Since conductivity is the key, superstorms are products of an
increasingly saline ocean relative to its heat energy. It would
appear that the slowly melting glaciers prevent such state and that
is our present course . . . at least so far.

And the moon indeed does have a role in outgassing patterns, getting
to roiling and gas exchange as Keeling Whorf have noted with the
Little Ice Age cycle matching moon patterns. But the idea has to be
to ask questions about conductivity and cloud organizations. As long
as you are afraid to ask the right questions, there will always be
more heat than light in these discussions.

So for all here, here are some of the main links from 1999 or so that
started it all for me on rivers and hydrates and where CO2 becomes a
signal over its natural existance in our atmosphere, much like water
is to sweat:

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1929/index.html
http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1930/index.html
http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1931/index.html

River changes to the Mississippi began in the 1920s . . .

Unfortunately, we don't have the EPAC tropical storm data until AFTER
WWII, although in my view you can see some impact on tropical storm
activity in the GOM after the Colorado river was diverted in the
early 30s. Also, there are similar impact when the Sultan Sea was
created by levy break off the Colorado at the turn of the century.

I am connecting the causal behaviors of our most significant WEATHER
events. You all keep talking about 'climate', as if you know what it
is! Both climate AND weather are electrical and biological.

The last few days have seen G-1 geomagnetic storms in response to a
high-speed solar wind stream, and some quite beautiful aurora pictures
have been captured in northern Europe, Canada, and the northern US, as
can be seen here :
http://www.spaceweather.com/aurora/gallery_01apr05.htm .  The Earth is
now exiting that solar wind stream, so the activity level should drop
off.  There is a small coronal hole rotating into view, but it doesn't
look to be big enough to create much activity.  There are two small
sunspot regions visible, but neither look to have the potential to
generate a significant flare.

Worthy of note is the position of the sunspots.  They are both very
close to the sun's equator, which is what one would expect to see near
the bottom of a sunspot cycle.  Most sunspots form between +/- 30
degrees solar latitude.  A typical sunspot cycle will see sunspots
forming near the 30 degree line at the beginning of the cycle, and
then steadily moving closer to the equator as the cycle continues.
There is usually some overlap from one cycle to the next.  When you
see the first sunspots start forming at the 30 degree line, you'll
know that the solar machinery is starting Cycle 24.  See this diagram
for an illustration.

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/images/bfly.gif

Notice how there is a steady increase in sunspot cycle peaks from
Cycle 11 though Cycle 19, and notice how there appears to be an
equally steady decline from Cycle 19 to the current cycle, Cycle 23.
Could we be headed for another Maunder Minimum?  Time will tell.
Incidentally, the Maunder Minimum corresponded quite nicely with the
Little Ice Age.  Food for thought, no?

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 63
SFI : 85
A index : 22
K index : 3

Solar wind speed : 484.1 km/sec
Solar wind density : 2.9 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 1.3 nPa

IMF : 4.2 nT
IMF Orientation : 1.7 nT South

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : A5

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
Space weather for the past 24 hours has been minor. Geomagnetic storms
reaching the G1 level occurred.

Forecast for the next 24 hours :
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be at very low to low levels. Region 752
is complex enough to generate a C-class flare.

Geeomagnetic acticity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be at predominantly quiet to
unsettled levels. Isolated active conditions are possible on 15 April
as the geoeffective high speed stream wanes.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

is the fall equinox.




The tropics, as you know, contain warm waters and the warmer
saltwater is, the more conductive it becomes and, of course, after a
summer of heating, the oceans are at their warmest in the northern
hemisphere.

However, the ionosphere heats up relatively instantly--it doesn't
take a season to heat up. Nor does it take a season for ozone to be
created in the ionosphere. It happens quickly. But it happens
relative to the tilt of the earth in relation to the sun. In the fall
and spring, again, how the ionosphere behaves is maximized to the
tropics--with the fall carrying the most intense capacitive couplings
as the oceand have heated up. And there the ionosphere couples with
the tropics, which are warm and conductive, to most dramatically
impact cloud microphysics. It is no wonder that the peak of the
hurricane season in in the FALL and not the summer! Likewise, we get
spring storms for a REASON!!! So, when you are talking about the
solar flaring cycle and so forth, there are some rather complex
things, electrically, that are going on. It's not as straight forward
as you may think.



Floridians have LONG known about hurricanes coming in the fall:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3457/CRiv [...]



quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

There has been speculation that the stones are placed in alignment
with the soltice and equinox making it an astronomical site.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

> So, when you are talking about the
> solar flaring cycle and so forth, there are some rather complex
> things, electrically, that are going on. It's not as straight forward
> as you may think.
>

For reasons that scientists aren't entirely sure of, aurora and
gepomagnetic storms are more likely to occur at or near the spring and
fall equinox.

All is quiet for the moment, but the Earth should be moving into a
high-speed solar wind stream coming from a complex of small coronal
holes within the next 24 hours.  Aurora in the higher latitudes are a
possibility.  There are three sunspot regions visible, but none of
them look to have the potential of generating a significant flare.
One of them did kick off a C-5 flare on the 17th, which is actually
the strongest we've seen in awhile.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 44
SFI : 81
A index : 13
K index : 2

Solar wind speed : 369.4 km/sec
Solar wind density : 3.4 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 1.1 nPa

IMF : 4.2 nT
IMF Orientation : 3.3 nT South

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : A4

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

Forecast for the next 24 hours
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be very low to low.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled with
possible isolated active conditions due to the effects of a coronal
hole high speed stream moving into geoeffective position.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

The Earth has moved inside of a high-speed solar wind stream coming
from a coronal hole.  There was a brief G-1 geomagnetic storm at the
onset off the event, but conditions have quieted for the time being.
However, that could change, and the prediction is that the activity
level will increase over the next 48 hours.  None of the two sunspot
regions currently visible appear to have the potential for touching
off a significant flare at this time.  SOHO satellite solar magnetic
analysis shows what could be a fairly large sunspot region on the back
side of the sun.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 22
SFI : 77
A index : 5
K index : 2

Solar wind speed : 452.2 km/sec
Solar wind density : 4.7 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 1.6 nPa

IMF : 7.8 nT
IMF Orientation : 0.2 nT North

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : A1

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

Forecast for the next 24 hours
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be very low.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled early on 22
April. A geoeffective coronal hole high speed stream is expected to
increase conditions later in the day. Unsettled to active with minor
storm periods are possible late on 22 April continuing into early 23
April. Conditions are expected to settle down on 24 April to mostly
quiet to unsettled.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

This is a continuation on the theme of conductivity impacts on
tropical storms, with, for instance, gravity waves equating to out
gassings of CO2 and then conductivity dynamics that follow. These
extremely heavy math focuses only on SSTs.

I recently did a crude calculation with my voltmeter, outdoor
thermometer, salt from a shaker, and a coffee cup. I got about (with
the unmeasured dash of salt) about a percent decrease in resistance
with each degree increase in temperature.

If you want it exactly it will cost you about $600+:

http://www.fondriest.com/products/ysi30.htm

My experiment was not too far from the texts. Try:

http://www.thermorussell.com/techcond.htm

They give 2.12% / degC.

The fun starts when you start putting salt in your beer and shaking
it and trying conductivity readings on the surface of your beer--but
I will leave that for Friday night. Of course, the amount of salt is
important, too, and why you will get slightly different numbers of
try this at home--unless you have one of those floaters I used to
have with my ocean fish tanks and we can be on the same specific
gravity page.

Please consider, anyway, the following VERY carefully. The CHINA
paper SHOWS that the with kvolt transients you start to see changes
in how the ion ice forms. See it:

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

Quote:

"The effects of electric field on ice crystal growth had been
numerically discussed by Scishcheve and Kusalike6-7. They announced
that the strength of an electric field able to change the ice lattice
from normal ice(Ih) to cubic ice (Ic) should be at least 10 to the
5th kV/m However, the strength of the electric field used in our
experiments was only 1/400 of the 10 to the 5th kV/m . . ."



Now, check this out:


http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G10.htm

Quote:

Consistent with this, Burke et al. [1992] has reported the detection
of keV electrons and large electric field transients above a
hurricane. These various observations all suggest that what is
occurring at great depths in the ocean may couple to the ionosphere.
The coupling mechanisms was said by them not to be well understood,
but it seems probable that "capacitive coupling" through the
displacement current my drive conduction currents within the
ionosphere [Hale and Baginski, 1987].



ke Volts = 10 to 9 power or 1000 kvolts/meter.

By my calculations from above the electric field used in the China
experiment was 250 kV/m.

So you are certainly in the voltage range where you can OBSERVE the
microphysics changes in an ion solution with the same pH as rainwater.

I am going to just talk about power.


Electrical power is measured in watts. One watt equals one (J) joule
per second. A joule is the SI unit of work or energy, defined to be
the work done by a force of one newton acting to move an object
through a distance of one meter in the direction in which the force
is applied. Equivalently, since kinetic energy is one half the mass
times the square of the velocity, one joule is the kinetic energy of
a mass of two kilograms moving at a velocity of 1 m/s. In an
electrical system power (P) is equal to the voltage multiplied by the
current. Since we are taking about a forcing moving an object at a
distance, then we can talk about, mathematically, about moving an
accumulation of charges a distance as the eye of the hurricane moves.

P = VI

By ohm's law

I = V / R can be restated as V = I R

Now you can substitute the equation for V into the other equation:

P = V I substituting for V we get P = IR I, or


P = I2R

Okay? This is basic stuff. We can assume that the resistance is
constant for this problem, and the current is expressed, ultimately,
in electrons.

Now. Again. Picture a hurricane and extreme accumulations of
relatively positive charges above the eye in the ionosphere (not the
clouds, please, for God's sake, don't confuse the action on the
clouds with where the actual currents are). These charges COUPLE with
the ocean where the skin of the ocean has relatively negative
charges. This is a static field and in that static field microphysics
of clouds are impacted and barotropic is organized. This organization
of clouds cannot occur well outside of the eye because water carries
a strong dielectric constant and interferes with the ability of the
coupling, the opposites attracting by static field, to occur. With me
so far?

Okay. Now the hurricane MOVES. And so for there to be a static field
it must go 'around' the cloud. Now appreciate that these tropical
storm eyes are sometimes 200 miles across, and, say, a typical cat 5
in the Atlantic will have a 25 mile diameter eye. So as the storm
moves, say, at 10 MPH, the static field isn't completely covered by
water, but it does move. As it moves, so must the static field in
order for the microphysics impact to remain coherent.

Now, now matter what the pathway the charges move, it takes POWER to
move them.

Okay?

Power is required. Like the economist once said, there is no free
lunch.

And the more resistance and the greater the field we are trying to
move, the more power it will take to move these charges.

Work or power is required to alter the cloud microphysics, too.

But I am just focused on the ocean surface for this time. And
ignoring the out gassing and conductivity patterns therefrom. And I
could talk about resistance in the ionosphere as well, and that would
apply with respect to what I am talking about with the equinox. But
for the moment, I am just looking at temperature of the oceans, which
we have already seen a percentage difference per degree and if we are
talking about 72 to 82 degrees, that's a 10 percent drop in power
requirement to keep the static field going that organizes cloud
microphysics, assuming all other things being equal.


We are talking about capacitive couplings between ocean and
ionosphere. The charges are not moving from point a 10 feet below the
ocean to points 1000 feet below the surface of the ocean. They are
moving between conductive points on the surface of the ocean and
coupling with conductive elements in the ionosphere. Current CAN'T
FLOW significantly between ocean and ionosphere--what is coupling
these two places is a magnetic field. A static field. You know,
opposing charges attract. That attraction is due to a magnetic field.
In between these fields in the air is water (clouds) which has
dielectric meaning to this coupling. Now, this static field MOVES. As
it moves, it will move along, again, the surface of the ocean. It
moves with visible effect. Indeed, there is both the behavior of
the 'eye' as well as internally, the mesovortices, which are
comprised of zones of water and less water, as well as transients of
these kevolt accumulations, but relatively cloud free to 'be' an eye.
So there is microphysics impacts in the eye generally and inside the
eye specifically, and this gets to be important when, say, you are
talking about a storm like Andrew with 5 mesovortices . . .

Now imagine that there is an increase in the resistance of the oceans-
-such as a decrease in ocean temperature. That prevents the movement
or coupling from further occurring.

Consider this picture of the Pacific ocean in infra red and the
clouds there:

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/sat_ir_p.gif

this picture, even from a common sense perspective, indicates that
the tropical ITCZ and the storm to the north of it in the mid Pacific
operate under different rules of thermodynamics and microphysics--and
indeed the electrical fields imposed on the cloud microphysics ARE
different for the tropics and the mid lattitude storms like this.

In sum.

P = I2R

Power equals current squared times resistance. Current is expressed
in electrons. Resistance as we have seen is a percentage of
temperature.

The dipole static field with the huge accumulations of electrons and
positive ions in a hurricane eye will have to be moved with the
hurricane in order to aid organization. That movement will be
substantially along the skin of the surface because that is where the
coupling occurs. That movement at a distance requires POWER. That
power requirement is proportionate with resistance. It will take, to
maintain status quo of a hurricane, about 10 percent more power to
organize a hurricane--as it was, for each drop in degrees F. in SSTs.


	 I will make an assumption is that there are an infinite
number of current paths from one area on the surface of the ocean
charged by the static field between ocean and ionosphere, so no
matter how large the resistances in each 'wire', the net current will
flow not on the surface but below it, negating any degree change in
resistance that SSTs bring. So let's take that logic and see where it
goes.

To solve this problem, we first need to find what is called
equivalent resistance. This is the resistance for the sum of all
these 'wires' that DED is saying exist, providing a current path that
avoids the surface resistance. Equivalent resistance can be found if
you know the individual resistance values and the source voltage.

1/Req=1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3+ . . . 1/Rn



This problem is seen better using the reciprocal method:


Req=1 / 1/R1+1/R2+1/R3+ . . . 1/Rn

Now, if we take our assumption that there are infinite number of
current paths, then the denominator becomes infinite and the Req
resistance equals ZERO.

That means that if you have ANY applied voltage, and apply ohm's law
to this Req circuit, than the current is infinite.

How does that check with reality?

It doesn't.

The surface fair weather voltage is 250 volts per meter positive to
ground. What that means is that there is a current of electrons on
the surface moving up to the ionosphere, and that current matches the
input of lightning strikes around the world bring electrons to the
earth in bursts of charges. Now, if there is an ZERO Req, than there
is infinite current to maintain the 250 volts per meter. Is that what
we see? Nope. Not even CLOSE!

That's because static field relationships exist and define the
currents and the application of the resistance on the skin of the
oceans . . . this is all about capacitive couplings, where SSTs
matter electrically.

If you are to take the AVERAGE of the global circuit, it comes out to
be a small voltage, but I am focused on hurricanes, which are
electrically organized events proximate to the conductive tropics and
by my observations proximate to thunderstorm activities. The voltages
required in the China paper to make the microphysics changes have
been OBSERVED. The Bates et all research on Hurricane Felix published
in Nature noted the corresponding change in pp of CO2.


k1 k2 k3
H2O + CO2 <=> H2CO3 <=> H+ + HCO3- <=> 2H+ + CO3.

Increased H+ will drive the equations back toward the right. An
increase in electrons ON THE SURFACE will drive the equation TO THE
LEFT. This is how global CO2 levels MATTER in tropical storm
formations . . . it has an electrical meaning!

There is a potential difference, or a voltage, on the surface—which
averages about 100 volts per meter. What that means is if you are
talking about 2 meters above the ocean, the voltage DOUBLES. This is
a vertical measure, not a horizontal measure.

The horizontal measure is current (i) and is measured in meters
squared.

The DYNAMIC field is not straight up and down due to a cloud IN
BETWEEN the ionosphere and ocean SURFACE, will these electrons that
are moved have to experiance the resistance associated with the
surface. The momentary VECTORS of the dynamic field will have a
horizontal aspect and it will 'drag' or cause a voltage (pressure)
movement along the surface.

The confusion is current flow is typically expressed as positive ions
when in this case, you have lighting strikes bringing electrons to
ground and creating a relatively positive charge in the ionosphere.
Strikes occur prodominately in the terrepshere, which means that the
oceans are exposed on average to fair weather. Hurricanes and
tropical storms are relatively strike free, and when strikes do
occur, the electrons are dissapated quickly in the "infinity"
conductive oceans. Yet what remains is the field. That field brings
electrons to the surface attracted to the relative concentrations of
positive ions in the conductive coencentric shell in the ionosphere.

The delta field force that is horizontal can be expressed
mathematically. I will assume for the purposes of this calculation
that we are talking about a hurricane and a moving eyewall. An
eyewall has a significant amount of water and has the shape of a
stadium, and a well developed hurricane is sometimes called as having
a "stadium effect". So the clouds come in at an angle which is
indicative of the fact that there is this horizontal aspect of the
field. I will assume that the cloud level is halfway between ocean
surface and ocean and that water presents such a high dielectric
constant that for practical purposes the field does not exist under
that eyewall and that the coupling runs there from ocean to
ionosphere. Therefore, the delta distance that the cloud wall moves
on the shading edge will be in terms of voltage will be the square
root of sum of the distance from ionosphere to ocean squared minus
the square delta distance. With some calculus and limits math you
could calculate the instantaneous rate.

These hurricane eyes are typically 5-25 miles across in the Atlantic.
The distance between ionosphere and ocean is about 50 miles. If a
hurricane is moving at 25 miles an hour, in one hour the eye is fully
displaced and the electrons that were on the surface of the eye are
now twenty five miles displaced. So you could say that the distance
between ionosphere and ocean is covered every 2 hours.

The reality of an incrementally moving field and that the movement is
in the context of that field forcing which has a horizontal component
in the direction of that movement. Since the movement has both
vertical and horizontal component, the movement of electrons is along
the skin of the oceans and will experience the resistance of the
ocean--in this case we have been discussing how that conductivity is
determined by SSTs.

In 1902 Arthur E. Kennelly Professor of Electrical Engineering at
Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and physicist Oliver
Heaviside at the Great Northern Telegraphy Company in England,
independently discovered the ionosphere and explained how radio
transmissions worked over curved space. The radio wave struck the
upper atmosphere, much like a whip cracks back a wave, and then
transmitted a signal beyond line of sight, hundreds, even thousands
of miles away. It worked because that part of the atmosphere was
conductive, where high energy, high frequency solar light struck
mostly O2 and converted it to an conductive ion. The air there was
thin enough to not be insulative. This is science born about the time
of my grandfather, who was born in 1904.

Today, most of us are aware of this science just because we have
become curious why AM stations from across the country come in at
night, but not during the day.  We have learned that the ionosphere
heats up during the day and is unable to transmit a signal from
distances as well. Well, perhaps that was the science of my father--
as he was of the era of the radio.

One of the most studied aspects of a tropical storm is how they
behave from day to night, almost as much as they are studied by
behavior from season to season. As you all know by now, I consider
the main organizing feature of tropical storms to be electrical. That
cloud microphysics behaviors in tropical storms follow the China
paper, linked above. So, it should come as no surprise to some of you
that I consider the day to night changes in the ionosphere, one half
the coupling partner in the static field that organizes tropical
storms, to be an extremely significant factor in cyclo-genesis. But
there is more. Consider that during the winter the polar regions
receive less direct radiation, and the ionosphere is considerably
more stable. So with that backdrop, consider the following paper:


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Public Release: 30-Nov-2004
Geophysical Research Letters
AGU journal highlights - 30 November 2004
Articles in this edition include:

Diurnal changes in ocean's carbon cycle;


Contact: Harvey Leifert
hleifert@...
202-777-7507
American Geophysical Union



Diurnal changes in ocean's carbon cycle

Daytime heating and nighttime cooling affects the carbon cycle in the
oceans such that the global oceans' uptake of carbon dioxide is
likely more than twice as large during the evening than during the
day. Olsen et al. analyzed the effects of diurnal variations of sea
surface temperature and wind speed on the pressure of the oceans'
carbon dioxide and on the sea-air carbon dioxide exchange. The
authors combined satellite observations and existing data to examine
the movement of carbon dioxide over a 24-hour period and found that
although variations in sea surface temperature over the course of a
day affect the air-sea carbon dioxide flux worldwide, the effects are
largest in the southern latitudes, and wind speed effects are
restricted to warmer tropical ocean zones. They then created new
equations that would capture the magnitude of the variations and test
whether sea surface temperature and wind speed had a significant
effect on the ocean-carbon cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------



+++++++++++++++++++++++

A number of studies have indicated that the thermohaline was closed
down and the heat engine of the earth stopped pumping. THIS TURNS OUT
TO BE FALSE! One recent study is below. But what REALLY is going on
you can test in your kitchen. Same test as before. Put salt and water
in your coffee cup and test at a fixed temperature. Now add water at
the same temperature. One easy way to match temperatures is to wait
for room temperature for both mixtures. What happens to conductivity?
Probably the most famous American writing on this theory is William
Calvin out of University of Washington--Calvin is a brain
evolutionist who thinks we as humans got such large brains dealing
with climate flip flops. His flip flop, closed conveyor ideas were
even published in the Atlantic Monthly a few years ago. Of course,
you don't want to get me started on Calvin, as he missed the
electrical aspect of cloud microphysics and then the whole nucleotide
complex sorting--which would bring you squarely to how Schumann
resonances are found in the sky . . . and in our brains. Brain
evolutionist? What a blunder for him!:


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

Public Release: 1-Dec-2004
Geophysical Research Letters
Sea-level clue to climate change
A team of UIC scientists has discovered and dated a deeply buried
core sample of peat from the Mississippi Delta that suggests a rise
in sea level around the time of dramatic earth cooling 8,200 years
ago. The finding is the first sea level measurement to directly
correspond to the cooling, suggesting a catastrophic flood of
freshwater, formed by retreating ice sheets, changed the density of
North Atlantic water and altered the temperature-moderating Gulf
Stream current.
National Science Foundation, National Geographic Society, Geological
Society of America, Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies

Contact: Paul Francuch
francuch@...
312-996-3457
University of Illinois at Chicago


Public release date: 1-Dec-2004
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

Contact: Paul Francuch
francuch@...
312-996-3457
University of Illinois at Chicago

Sea-level clue to climate change
It sounds like the plot for a disaster film: rising temperatures melt
polar ice, causing a flood of freshwater to rapidly enter the salty
North Atlantic. As the fresh and salty water mixes, density changes,
altering the Gulf Stream ocean currents that moderate the North
Atlantic climate. In just a few years, average temperatures plummet,
ushering in a deep freeze that lasts a century or more before fresh
and salty water is back in balance, ocean currents adjust and
temperatures return to normal.
Science fiction? Not to a growing number of geologists and
climatologists who've studied facts showing a precipitous 6-degree
Centigrade drop in Greenland's average temperature some 8,200 years
ago as the Earth was exiting the last ice age and polar ice sheets
were melting in retreat. Many scientists believe a catastrophic flood
of freshwater entering the North Atlantic clipped the flow of the
Gulf Stream current. The suspected source of the floodwater was a
glacial reservoir called Lake Agassiz. A popular theory suggests that
Lake Agassiz's huge volume of freshwater -- more than twice that of
today's Caspian Sea -- may have breached an ice dam or tunneled under
Hudson Bay's ice sheets, then gushed into the North Atlantic, perhaps
in a period lasting only months. Scientists call it the largest mega-
flood of the last 100,000 years.

Torbjörn Törnqvist, an assistant professor of earth and environmental
sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, reports in the
Dec. 11 online issue of Geophysical Research Letters about a new set
of 8,200-year-old core samples that indicate an abrupt sea-level
rise. The finding adds credence to the theory that a catastrophic
freshwater flood into the North Atlantic triggered the great chill
around that date.

"Few would argue it's the most dramatic climate change in the last
10,000 years," said Törnqvist. "We're now able to show the first sea-
level record that corresponds to that event."

The discovery came by coincidence. Törnqvist and his graduate
students are conducting ongoing studies into sea-level changes along
the Gulf of Mexico, using core samples of peat retrieved from the
swamps and marshes in the Mississippi River delta in Louisiana.
Samples gathered in 2003 from a saltwater marsh in an area known as
Bayou Sale held the clue.

As sea levels rise, peat deposits are formed. These deposits can be
accurately radiocarbon dated. They also contain organic debris that
can suggest whether water was salty or fresh at the time of
deposition, based on plant salt tolerance. Analyzing his samples,
Törnqvist discovered them to be around 8,200 years old and found
evidence that a saltwater marsh was abruptly flooded and turned into
a lagoon, indicating a sudden sea-level rise at the time.

Törnqvist said that if comparable sea-level readings can be taken
from other coastal areas on Earth, it could add evidence that a
catastrophic freshwater flood into the North Atlantic 8,200 years ago
did cause ocean current disruption and the consequent abrupt climate
change.

"We happened to sample along the Gulf of Mexico, but there's no
reason you can't study this in, say, China or New Zealand as well,"
said Törnqvist. "The oceans are all connected. If we can measure the
amount of sea level rise that occurred 8,200 years ago, we will be
able to convert that back into a measurable amount of freshwater.
With our first data, we now know the amount of sea-level rise was
probably less than 1.2 meters – which is less than several previously
published estimates. In the future, we hope to come up with a more
accurate number. Climatologists urgently need this type of
information to run their climate models in order to understand the
conditions that can produce such an abrupt climate change."


###
The research was supported by grants from the National Science
Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Geological Society
of America and the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies.
Radiocarbon dating was done at the Robert J. Van de Graaff Laboratory
at Utrecht University in the Netherlands.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/uoia-sct113004.php



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

This is going to be an abbreviated report tonight, as I have to get up
earlier than usual tomorrow.  There isn't much happening anyway.  the
solar wind speed is in the mid-400's, and no geomagnetic activity
worth mentioning has happened within the last few days.  The sun was
actually completely devoid of visible sunspots yesterday, although one
sunspot region is peeking over the eastern limb of the solar disk
today.  A small coronal hole has rotated into view, and we could see
some solar wind gusts from it by the end of the month.  I'll give a
full report tomorrow.

Last night I spent some time talking with an oncologist personally,
not professionally, as I am fortunately in good health. We spoke in a
relaxed setting.  It is more difficult to talk one on one about this
material because when you talk orally to someone, there is no chance
to weigh your words, edit, and so forth.  The discussion began over
anti-oxidants and cancer.

I am not sure whether I should try to put the conversation to you
verbatim, or describe it with my eyes.  For fair readers who have
been tracking this discussion on a living earth and climate, tropical
storm behaviors, you may find our conversation fascinating.  But for
the reader who is unfamiliar with what the heck I am talking about,
they may find a discussion about oncology on a climate bb . . .
well . . . crazy.  Not relevant.  So some explanation is required.

Some basics.  Oncology is the study of cancer.  An oncologist is a
cancer doctor.  One of the first questions I asked the oncologist was
how much time she spent treating patients and how much time she spent
in 'research'.  Her answer IMHO was typical of doctors today who are
good and very busy--that most of her 'research', if you want to call
it that is clinical and individual patient driven.  IOWs, she spends
a great deal of time thinking, researching about her individual
patients and their cancer.

What I asked the oncologist was if she was familiar with the debate
over design and evolution.  Her response was I suppose expected.  An
oncologist would deal with death all the time, with families in their
grief, and so forth.  She said that design was a religious question.
I said, no, that's not what I was talking about.  I am not talking
about religion.  I was asking a 'scientific' question, making a
scientific point--about design.  I asked her, specifically; what
about cancer is part of design?  I said, for example, what is the
greater purpose of a virus? A virus and a host cell do not seem to
share a common goal, or purpose.  The virus destroys a cell in order
to exist--you would think that after 3 billion years of evolution
that the host cell would get the message and off the virus. Why is a
virus part of design?  What good, symbiotically, is a virus to a
cell?

So the same question, I asked, about cancer. What about cancer is
part of design?  If you know the purpose of cancer, you can
appreciate what cancer IS and it's design function, you can treat
your patients better.

Then I tried to explain that question better.

I explained about my brother doing DNA research.  How electrophoresis
works, and how that ties in to cloud microphysics and abiogenesis.
The idea is that with DNA, you can sort out individual sequences by
putting a sample in a gel and putting a voltage potential on the gel,
with a cathode and an anode creating a static field.  The nucleotide
complex then moves through the gel depending on the size, shape, mass
and charge of the DNA complex.  If you add a dye, the movement of the
DNA shows up in 'bands' and that is how you can tell DNA samples
apart.  That's electrophoresis.

Likewise, between the ionosphere and ocean there is a voltage
potential and there were DNA complexes in water droplets that were
super cooled.  The ionosphere acts like a cathode and the ocean
surface like an anode and the air like the gel.    And that the China
paper tells us that in a DC field ion water that is super cooled
freezes with relative asymmetry. So that with DNA complexes in
clouds, you would have a sort of control device and living controller
on cloud microphysics based on the specific size, shape, charge and
mass of the sample.  And that is how life first became complex.
Became designer.

So the context of the discussion, again, was anti-oxidants and
cancer.  The doctor began to discuss a double blind study that showed
some significant result respecting anti oxidants.  What it showed,
ironically, was that an increase in anti oxidants increased cancer
incidence.  Which doesn't seem to make sense.  So if you stop eating
oranges -- you have a better shot at surviving cancer???  Well, as it
turns out, maybe not.  What the studies did not address is that
during chemotherapy and radiation treatments, that the anti-oxidants
were counterproductive of the purpose of those treatments.  What the
doctor prescribes, then, is during chemotherapy and radiation
treatments--anti-oxidants are a no-no.  But afterwards . . . is
another story.


My theory of abiogenesis first requires life to be defined.  Life, in
my view, requires metabolism and repair, or as you may hear from a
biologist, anabolism and catabolism.  I make the case, here, that the
earth was alive before life forms of smaller scale evolved.

You had in fair weather zones areas where UV light struck the ocean
surface and combined with formaldehyde to produce sugars.  And under
clouds the UV light is blocked, and, there, the sugars are oxidized
back to CO2 exothermically.  That CO2 bubbles up to the surface, and
nucleotide complexes would have a tendency to be lifted on the
surface tension of the CO2 gas and then be whisked into the air with
winds associated with the convection and clouds to become part of
microphysics processes.  Such was the first symbiotic relationship of
life--that between metabolism and nucleotide complex.  Obviously, if
DNA can be damaged by oxidation, and at the same time oxidation is
required to turn a sugar to CO2, the emergence of antioxidants would
have been a powerful evolutionary advance.  At the same time, in the
sorting process where nucleotide complexes where in the clouds and
subject to these DC fields -- put these same complexes into regions
where radiation levels, exposure to toxic chemistry may occur.  While
clouds would protect the complex from UV light and radiation, and
clouds would contain fewer if any chemicals that were toxic, UV light
was required for the creation of sugars.

Today, the oceans are too saline for any organized cloud microphysics
with nucleotide complexes.  That's because in the DC field the salt
ions will move and create more noise than a nucleotide complex
commutation would achieve in signal.  There could be no cloud
modulation.  Today, modulation occurs with life by cellular life.
Cellular life contains chemistries over diffusion. Cellular life, in
accumulation, on the ocean surface, causes the capacitate couplings
to increase with direct decreases in resistance, plus localization of
CO2 from out gassings dropping conductivities, plus life like diatoms
which aid cloud nucleation rates.

But somewhere in between, cellular life had its electrical role and
bare nucleotide complexes could move inside a cloud by shape, charge,
mass and size--altering cloud microphysics, and would have had an
equal role. Cells, on the other hand, would not be able to 'sort'
inside a cloud or move depending on the 'model' of what they were by
size, shape, mass or charge. In my view, a symbiotic relationship
makes perfect sense in this modulating context, and is where, I
think, sexual reproduction evolved.  Sexual reproduction is
inefficient and takes longer than other forms of reproduction, but by
maintaining a tap into intelligent design, was able to evolve against
other forms of reproduction.

And in so tapping into design, sexual reproduction taps into
intelligence.  If you look at our brains using modern imaging, you
can see resonances called Schumann resonances.  Those same resonances
are found in the atmosphere. Every time a lightning strikes it rings
the ionosphere like bell . . . Such frequencies vibrated with the
nucleotide complexes in the clouds, and would have allowed the
complexes to communicate with the EMF conditions, and act in
community, and then, later, in community, communicate with each
other.  And in such communication, allow chemical feedbacks that
would have further allowed complex responses to the on coming EMF
conditions.  Such complexity mimics our own thinking processes!

So, to answer my first question, a virus did indeed, like the 'male'
aspect of a symbiotic relationship with a 'female' cell, hold
symbiotic relationship with a cell, but in that instance, the use of
the cell ended essentially with the virus.  To answer my second,
cancer was a surviving trait on a living earth.  Increases in
selective mutations that enhanced a living earth.  For instance,
smoke from your cigarette causes deadly cancer but at the same time
caused, on a living earth, specific increases in mutation rates that
would have allowed changes to continue to modulate toward a living
earth.

Today, such information is telling about climate.  When Central and
West Africa burned last winter, the spring was followed by a category
one hurricane striking Brazil.  Such are the design backgrounds, of a
living earth.

With the internet, the purposes of viruses are pretty random spanning
from a bored kid in study hall to network testing. The end result is
the same as what you are talking about: evolution of virus scanners
and computer security


>Last night I spent some time talking with an oncologist personally,
>not professionally, as I am fortunately in good health. We spoke in a
>relaxed setting.  It is more difficult to talk one on one about this
>material because when you talk orally to someone, there is no chance
>to weigh your words, edit, and so forth.  The discussion began over
>anti-oxidants and cancer.
>
>I am not sure whether I should try to put the conversation to you
>verbatim, or describe it with my eyes.  For fair readers who have
>been tracking this discussion on a living earth and climate, tropical
>storm behaviors, you may find our conversation fascinating.  But for
>the reader who is unfamiliar with what the heck I am talking about,
>they may find a discussion about oncology on a climate bb . . .
>well . . . crazy.  Not relevant.  So some explanation is required.
>
>Some basics.  Oncology is the study of cancer.  An oncologist is a
>cancer doctor.  One of the first questions I asked the oncologist was
>how much time she spent treating patients and how much time she spent
>in 'research'.  Her answer IMHO was typical of doctors today who are
>good and very busy--that most of her 'research', if you want to call
>it that is clinical and individual patient driven.  IOWs, she spends
>a great deal of time thinking, researching about her individual
>patients and their cancer.
>
>What I asked the oncologist was if she was familiar with the debate
>over design and evolution.  Her response was I suppose expected.  An
>oncologist would deal with death all the time, with families in their
>grief, and so forth.  She said that design was a religious question.
>I said, no, that's not what I was talking about.  I am not talking
>about religion.  I was asking a 'scientific' question, making a
>scientific point--about design.  I asked her, specifically; what
>about cancer is part of design?  I said, for example, what is the
>greater purpose of a virus? A virus and a host cell do not seem to
>share a common goal, or purpose.  The virus destroys a cell in order
>to exist--you would think that after 3 billion years of evolution
>that the host cell would get the message and off the virus. Why is a
>virus part of design?  What good, symbiotically, is a virus to a
>cell?
>
>So the same question, I asked, about cancer. What about cancer is
>part of design?  If you know the purpose of cancer, you can
>appreciate what cancer IS and it's design function, you can treat
>your patients better.
>
>Then I tried to explain that question better.
>
>I explained about my brother doing DNA research.  How electrophoresis
>works, and how that ties in to cloud microphysics and abiogenesis.
>The idea is that with DNA, you can sort out individual sequences by
>putting a sample in a gel and putting a voltage potential on the gel,
>with a cathode and an anode creating a static field.  The nucleotide
>complex then moves through the gel depending on the size, shape, mass
>and charge of the DNA complex.  If you add a dye, the movement of the
>DNA shows up in 'bands' and that is how you can tell DNA samples
>apart.  That's electrophoresis.
>
>Likewise, between the ionosphere and ocean there is a voltage
>potential and there were DNA complexes in water droplets that were
>super cooled.  The ionosphere acts like a cathode and the ocean
>surface like an anode and the air like the gel.    And that the China
>paper tells us that in a DC field ion water that is super cooled
>freezes with relative asymmetry. So that with DNA complexes in
>clouds, you would have a sort of control device and living controller
>on cloud microphysics based on the specific size, shape, charge and
>mass of the sample.  And that is how life first became complex.
>Became designer.
>
>So the context of the discussion, again, was anti-oxidants and
>cancer.  The doctor began to discuss a double blind study that showed
>some significant result respecting anti oxidants.  What it showed,
>ironically, was that an increase in anti oxidants increased cancer
>incidence.  Which doesn't seem to make sense.  So if you stop eating
>oranges -- you have a better shot at surviving cancer???  Well, as it
>turns out, maybe not.  What the studies did not address is that
>during chemotherapy and radiation treatments, that the anti-oxidants
>were counterproductive of the purpose of those treatments.  What the
>doctor prescribes, then, is during chemotherapy and radiation
>treatments--anti-oxidants are a no-no.  But afterwards . . . is
>another story.
>
>
>My theory of abiogenesis first requires life to be defined.  Life, in
>my view, requires metabolism and repair, or as you may hear from a
>biologist, anabolism and catabolism.  I make the case, here, that the
>earth was alive before life forms of smaller scale evolved.
>
>You had in fair weather zones areas where UV light struck the ocean
>surface and combined with formaldehyde to produce sugars.  And under
>clouds the UV light is blocked, and, there, the sugars are oxidized
>back to CO2 exothermically.  That CO2 bubbles up to the surface, and
>nucleotide complexes would have a tendency to be lifted on the
>surface tension of the CO2 gas and then be whisked into the air with
>winds associated with the convection and clouds to become part of
>microphysics processes.  Such was the first symbiotic relationship of
>life--that between metabolism and nucleotide complex.  Obviously, if
>DNA can be damaged by oxidation, and at the same time oxidation is
>required to turn a sugar to CO2, the emergence of antioxidants would
>have been a powerful evolutionary advance.  At the same time, in the
>sorting process where nucleotide complexes where in the clouds and
>subject to these DC fields -- put these same complexes into regions
>where radiation levels, exposure to toxic chemistry may occur.  While
>clouds would protect the complex from UV light and radiation, and
>clouds would contain fewer if any chemicals that were toxic, UV light
>was required for the creation of sugars.
>
>Today, the oceans are too saline for any organized cloud microphysics
>with nucleotide complexes.  That's because in the DC field the salt
>ions will move and create more noise than a nucleotide complex
>commutation would achieve in signal.  There could be no cloud
>modulation.  Today, modulation occurs with life by cellular life.
>Cellular life contains chemistries over diffusion. Cellular life, in
>accumulation, on the ocean surface, causes the capacitate couplings
>to increase with direct decreases in resistance, plus localization of
>CO2 from out gassings dropping conductivities, plus life like diatoms
>which aid cloud nucleation rates.
>
>But somewhere in between, cellular life had its electrical role and
>bare nucleotide complexes could move inside a cloud by shape, charge,
>mass and size--altering cloud microphysics, and would have had an
>equal role. Cells, on the other hand, would not be able to 'sort'
>inside a cloud or move depending on the 'model' of what they were by
>size, shape, mass or charge. In my view, a symbiotic relationship
>makes perfect sense in this modulating context, and is where, I
>think, sexual reproduction evolved.  Sexual reproduction is
>inefficient and takes longer than other forms of reproduction, but by
>maintaining a tap into intelligent design, was able to evolve against
>other forms of reproduction.
>
>And in so tapping into design, sexual reproduction taps into
>intelligence.  If you look at our brains using modern imaging, you
>can see resonances called Schumann resonances.  Those same resonances
>are found in the atmosphere. Every time a lightning strikes it rings
>the ionosphere like bell . . . Such frequencies vibrated with the
>nucleotide complexes in the clouds, and would have allowed the
>complexes to communicate with the EMF conditions, and act in
>community, and then, later, in community, communicate with each
>other.  And in such communication, allow chemical feedbacks that
>would have further allowed complex responses to the on coming EMF
>conditions.  Such complexity mimics our own thinking processes!
>
>So, to answer my first question, a virus did indeed, like the 'male'
>aspect of a symbiotic relationship with a 'female' cell, hold
>symbiotic relationship with a cell, but in that instance, the use of
>the cell ended essentially with the virus.  To answer my second,
>cancer was a surviving trait on a living earth.  Increases in
>selective mutations that enhanced a living earth.  For instance,
>smoke from your cigarette causes deadly cancer but at the same time
>caused, on a living earth, specific increases in mutation rates that
>would have allowed changes to continue to modulate toward a living
>earth.
>
>Today, such information is telling about climate.  When Central and
>West Africa burned last winter, the spring was followed by a category
>one hurricane striking Brazil.  Such are the design backgrounds, of a
>living earth.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



http://swezlex.com
aim: wallrall
"Know how to listen, and you will profit even from those who talk
badly." -Plutarch

** Aurora Watch In Effect **

There's actually something interesting to talk about tonight, as a CME
is on the way to Earth.  On the 25th, a fairly weak but unmistakable
CME was kicked off by the sun, and there was definitely a halo
component to it.  What makes this one really interesting is that it
wasn't associated with a sunspot.  Instead, it was most likely caused
by a solar filament collapse.  Filaments are gigantic loops of gas
that are suspended above the visible surface of the sun by a magnetic
field.  If the magnetic field becomes unstable, the gas in the
filament, being cooler by virtue of being suspended above the
"surface," will come crashing back down.  When it impacts the layer of
gas below it, it creates one heck of a splash.  The results of the
splash is what's called a Hyder flare, and a CME is often the end
result.  The CME from this event is expected to arrive within the next
24 hours.  A small coronal hole has also rotated into view.  We may
see some high speed solar wind gusts from it on either the 30th or May
1st.  There is one sunspot region visible, that being region 756.  It
does appear to be growing both in size and magnetic complexity, and
stands at least an outside chance of producing an M-class flare.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 45
SFI : 95
A index : 2
K index : 0

Solar wind speed : 355.5 km/sec
Solar wind density : 2.1 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 0.5 nPa

IMF : 3.0 nT
IMF Orientation : 0.4 nT North

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : B1

Conditions for the past 24 hours :
No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

Forecast for the next 24 hours :
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be at low levels. Region 756 has the
capability of producing an isolated M-class flare.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be at quiet to unsettled levels.
There is a slight chance that the partial halo CME observed on 25-26
April might produce isolated active conditions on 29 April.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

** G-1 Geomagnetic Storm In Progress **
**Aurora Watch In Effect **

The arrival of the CME I mentioned in my last report and a high speed
coronal hole solar wind stream have combined to produce G-1
geomagnetic storm conditions.  Thusfar, no aurora sightins have been
reported on spaceweather.com, but I wouldn't be surprised if some
aurora pictures show up in a couple of days.  The active conditions
are expected to continue for another 24 hours before beginning to
settle down.  Sunspot region 756 has grown big enough to be naked eye
visible, and now spans 5 Earth-diamaters.  It have at least an outside
chance of generating an M-class flare, although so far, the background
X-ray flux doesn't indicate a high level of activity from what is
easily the largest sunspot region we've seen in awhile.

The current solar and geomnagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 53
SFI : 106
A index : 18
K index : 5

Solar wind speed : 650.4 km/sec
Solar wind density : 1.9 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 1.6 nPa

IMF : 8.7 nT
IMF Orientation : 3.4 nT South

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : B1

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
Space weather for the past 24 hours has been minor. Geomagnetic storms
reaching the G1 level occurred.

Forecast for the next 24 hours :
Space weather for the next 24 hours is expected to be minor.
Geomagnetic storms reaching the G1 level are expected.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be low with a chance for an isolated
M-flare from Region 756.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be unsettled to active with minor
storm periods possible on 01 May. Conditions are expected to settled
down to quiet to unsettled levels with active periods possible for the
remainder of the period.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

Wow. The data for April came out and as predicted we have a negative
QBO -- about on track with 2003, which is amazing given
this 'interesting' event we just saw this last weekend. The March
data burp (near zero value) was from the tidal wave, IMHO, and we are
now back on track with the QBO running negative and what patterns
couple with the ionosphere as a result:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/qbo.data

2001 -15.69 -15.53 -15.99 -17.73 -20.99 -23.31 -24.45 -21.67 -14.29 -
10.81 -3.88 1.48
2002 4.64 8.00 9.32 14.03 14.16 13.26 10.05 10.60 8.90 7.66 4.46 -0.50
2003 -1.39 -1.44 -3.30 -8.57 -13.94 -18.01 -22.99 -24.64 -22.51 -
20.34 -17.86 -11.38
2004 -4.84 2.61 5.45 10.46 12.97 11.75 9.96 8.82 7.22 7.84 4.41 2.27
2005 -0.45 -0.88 0.06 -6.64 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -
999.00 -999.00 -999.00
-999.0



On this link a few days ago Friday there was a 21 k strike event!!!!

https://thunderstorm.vaisala.com/tux/jsp/explorer/explorer.jsp

And on this link a spin out in the central North Atlantic:

http://www.goes.noaa.gov/HURRLOOPS/huvsloop.html

The 'fair weather' zone between strikes powering cyclonic event and
cyclone darkened, as cloud microphysics are more zapped on average
per the China paper.

Strikes themselves are oriented with the algae bloom in EGOM this
spring.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
3?img_id=12627


SIO index out respecting extra tropical event in the Atlantic Friday.
Notice how it was rising:

http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/SeasonalClimateOutlook/SouthernOscil
lationIndex/30DaySOIValues/index.html


28-Apr-2005 1012.28 1012.80 -20.90 -10.12 -12.90
29-Apr-2005 1011.61 1012.35 -22.50 -10.69 -13.13
30-Apr-2005 1013.56 1011.75 -4.10 -10.75 -13.20
1-May-2005 1015.11 1011.15 18.60 -10.22 -13.00
2-May-2005 1014.34 1010.60 16.90 -9.79 -12.83

The solar wind speed has dropped back to normal levels since the most
recent round of actvity.  At least one person managed to capture a
picture of aurora shining through the midnight sun twilight in Alaska,
as can be seen here.
http://www.spaceweather.com/aurora/images2005/01may05/nall.jpg .
Sunspot region 756, while still large enough to be naked-eye visible,
is decaying in size and magnetic complexity.  It never did manage to
fire off a significant flare, although it did ccome darn close a
couple of times, generating two C-9 events.  It will soon be rotating
out of view. The next noteworthy event will be another coronal hole
solar wind stream encounter.  A medium-sized coronal hole has rotated
into an Earth-pointing position, and we should see the solar wind
gusts from it in four or five days.

The current solar and goemagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 50
SFI : 109
A index : 6
K index : 1

Solar wind speed : 335.5 km/sec
Solar wind density : 1.2 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 0.3 nPa

IMF : 4.4 nT
IMF Orientation : 2.5 nT North

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : B2

Conditions for the past 24 hours :
No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

Forecast for the next 24 hours
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be low with predominately B and C-class
activity in Regions 756 and 758. There is a chance of a small M-class
flare in either of these regions, as well.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
None

News Release
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S Geological Survey

Release Date: May 5, 2005

Contact: A.B. Wade 703-648-4483 abwade@...

USGS Scientists Document Widespread Increases in Streamflow and
Changes in the Timing of Snowmelt Over the Past 50 Years
Reston, VA – U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists have identified
nationwide trends toward increasing streamflow in many areas of the
nation since 1940 based on data collected from long-term USGS
streamgages. This conclusion and several more interesting trends in
our nation's streamflows can be found in four new fact sheets
recently issued by the agency.

"Understanding streamflow trends is essential to effective management
of the nation's water supply and is critical to developing strategies
that mitigate the potential negative impacts of floods and droughts,"
said USGS Associate Director for Water Robert Hirsch.

In the first study, USGS scientists identified a nationwide trend
that streamflow has been increasing in the United States since at
least 1940. Most of the increases were during low-and-moderate
streamflows. This means that, during typically dry periods, more
water is now available in the stream.

In the second study, scientists discovered that over the last 30
years, winter/spring streamflows occurred one to two weeks earlier
than in previous decades in northern or mountainous areas of New
England. Similarly, in the third study, scientists found that
streamflows in most western rivers occur almost one to three weeks
earlier now than they did in the middle of the 20th century.

The fourth study shows that the streamflow of the Mississippi River
was influenced by both climate and human activities such as
construction of water reservoirs, agricultural irrigation and
groundwater pumping. Streamflow of the Mississippi River increased at
a rate of 4.5 percent per decade largely because of an increase in
precipitation.

The USGS has been measuring and recording streamflow in the United
States since the late 1800's. Today, the USGS monitors streamflow at
7,400 locations nationwide. The USGS streamflow information is used
for many purposes such as water resource appraisal and allocation,
design of the nation's infrastructure such as bridges and water
treatment plants, flood hazard planning, National Weather Service
flood forecasting, reservoir operations, water-quality management,
habitat assessment and protection, recreational enjoyment and safety,
and understanding changes in streamflow due to land-use and climate
changes. USGS streamflow data are available at
http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/.

Summary of the Fact Sheets:

Streamflow Trends in the United States
(http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/fs2005-3017/)
Streamflow has been increasing in the United States since at least
1940. Regions that experienced the most widespread increases were the
Upper Mississippi, Ohio Valley, Texas-Gulf, and the Mid Atlantic.
· Of the nearly 22,700 streamgages for which the USGS has records,
435 monitor natural basins and have records of sufficient length to
analyze climatic trends.
· Streamflow increased across most of the United States during the
20th century at 40-45 percent of these 435 stations.
· Increases were most prevalent in low to moderate streamflows (seen
at 40 percent of the stations), with relatively few decreases (seen
at 8 percent of stations).
· Comparatively few stations (10 percent) had increases in annual
maximum streamflow.
· Streamflow increases occurred as a sudden rather than gradual
change around 1970, suggesting the climate shifted to a new regime.

Changes in Streamflow Timing in New England During the 20th Century
http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/fs2005-3019/)

During the last 30 years, the timing of winter/spring streamflow has
shifted earlier by one to two weeks in northern and mountainous New
England streams.
· The date when half of the total volume of streamflow for
winter/spring (January 1 to May 31) now arrives earlier than it did
in the first half of the 20th century at 14 of 27 streamgages in New
England.
· This shift to earlier streamflow was evident at all of the gages in
the northern and mountainous areas of Maine and New Hampshire where
snowmelt has the greatest effect on streamflow (11 of the 27
streamgages).
· Only 4 of the 27 streamgages exhibited shifts in the timing of
fall/winter streamflow (October 1 to December 31), and all of these
tended toward earlier streamflow.

Changes in Streamflow Timing in the Western United States in Recent
Decades http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/fs2005-3018)

As much as three-quarters of water supplies in the western United
States are derived from snowmelt. Trends toward earlier snowmelt and
streamflow need to be considered in the water-resource and flood-
management systems and procedures in many western settings.
· The average streamflow center-of-volume date (the date on which one-
half of the total annual flow volume passes a streamgage) in the
western United States is about nine days earlier now than in the
1950s.
· These shifts in timing result both from late winter and early
spring temperature increases, and from changes in the form of
precipitation (increasing liquid precipitation, smaller percentage of
snow) in late winter and early spring.

Trends in the Water Budget of the Mississippi River Basin, 1949-1997
(http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/fs2005-3020/)

This study involved analysis of trends in precipitation, streamflow,
evapotranspiration, depletion of ground water, and the filling of
reservoirs. This study describes the influences of both climate
trends and human alterations on streamflow from 1949 to 1997.
· Streamflow in the Mississippi River basin increased at a rate of
4.5 percent per decade during the second half of the 20th century.
· This increase resulted primarily from an increase in precipitation
offset by increases in evaporation from reservoirs and irrigated
cropland in the basin.

The USGS serves the nation by providing reliable scientific
information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of
life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological,
energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of
life. Subscribe to receive the latest USGS news releases.

* * *www.usgs.gov* * *

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf032/sf032p14.htm

Magnetic field burp--can it be explained by electrical dynamics of
the time?

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/qbo.data

=======JAN-----FEB-----MAR-----APR------MAY----JUNE---JULY----AUG-----
SEP-----OCT-----NOV-----DEC

1967   11.03   10.49   10.94   10.13    5.79   -0.58   -5.65   -
6.76   -6.06   -4.82   -6.05   -7.27

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1967/index.html

West tracking catagory 5 in September with QBO having flipped about 2
months.  Note how all the storms do well once they start tracking
east after right turning.

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/1967/index.html

Normal season.  Note how the catagory 4 storm tracked in formation
with the catagory 5 storm above.

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/1967/index.html


1968   -8.38  -10.21   -9.11  -12.25  -14.39  -19.27  -21.00  -
21.82  -17.45  -14.58  -13.11  -11.36

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1968/index.html

With QBO so negative all year the season was way down, and only
intense when moving east above the ITCZ.

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/1968/index.html

Anemic season with no storm over catagory 1.  Again, the QBO as
negative really is hard on west moving storms.  This is what
Fleming's right hand rule is about and induction.  The orientation of
the EMF flips and so induction does to--that is why the  winds flip.
At the same time, impedance is impacted on the surface and the storms
couple poorly moving west.

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/1968/index.html

In the west Pacific, the number of storms is down about 10 with the
QBO like this.

This is also a winter of El Nino SSTs in the Pacific, which seems to
suppress tropical storm activities.  See:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/ENSO/Compare/

However, the SOI index runs back and forth during this time, which is
sufficient IMHO to juice tropical storms in all the basins from the
roilings.

1969   -8.58   -4.43   -1.50    3.98    8.18    9.35    9.08
9.78    9.74    9.75    7.34    5.00

Now we flip back to positive during the heart of the hurricane
season.

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1969/index.html

Hurricane CAMILLE (14-22 AUG) and Hurricane DEBBIE (14-25 AUG) are
storms that are moving west in tandom, again, essentially along the
ITCZ, with a little of north movement that is consistant with
thermodynamics pushing toward colder and less organized air, BUT the
movement is essentially west in conjunction with the QBO.  Camille is
one of the all time great storms.

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/1969/index.html

Very little going on in the EPAC with so much activity in the
Atlantic.

http://www.john-daly.com/soi51.gif

If you look at the SOI index from Daly's site, interestingly, a
largely negative SOI occurs in 1969 FOLLOWING the 1968-9 El Nino.
This is also indicative of an extreme electrical condition, IMHO, the
SOI running contra to ENSO.  Such a negative SOI suppresses EPAC
storms, IMHO>

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/1969/index.html

Notice the almost straight west movement along the ITCZ of super
typhoon 11.  This is later in the season, and, again, in the context
of a positive QBO.

1970    0.30   -1.41   -4.63   -7.25  -12.21  -16.25  -18.62  -
21.38  -21.67  -22.12  -22.48  -17.39

Now we are back to a negative QBO again during the peak of the
hurricane season.

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1970/index.html

With QBO so negative all year the season was way down, you would
expect the only the intense storms would occur when moving east above
the ITCZ.  With 9 and 10 this is true, but Camille was such an
intense storm in the EGOM that it change the GOM environment, IMHO,
such that WGOM storms are favored, which is what occurred.  By this
time, the SOI is back to its back and forth ways, which tends to
power storms in the oceans.


http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/1970/index.html

A little more active in the EPAC, which is what we might expect with
a flipping SOI.

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/1970/index.html

In the west Pacific, the number of storms is way up with 4 super
typhoons.

After this activity in the West and East Pacific, a La Nina forms
that winter.

Typhoon Tip in the Northwest Pacific Ocean on 12 October 1979 was
measured to have a central pressure of 870 mb and estimated surface
sustained winds based on aircraft dropsonde data of 85 m/s (165 kt,
190 mph).  It was not a category 5 for a particularly long period of
time, as seen by the tracking data:

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/1979/23/track.dat

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/1979/23/track_s.gif

from

http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/1979/index.html

This storm marked the end of the 70s, a decade discussed in
climatology as cold anomaly.  Several journals postulated that we
were headed for a neo glacial . . . and the fake skeptics often will
point out to this decade as a reason to be doubt claims of global
climate change.  The decade began with the magnetic 'burp' and
Hurricane Camille in the Gulf of Mexico, and ended with Tip.


Tip also had the largest circulation pattern on record, 1379-nm
radius.

Tip followed a few weeks after Hurricanes David and Frederic in the
Atlantic basin, which were both powerful landfalling hurricanes.  The
QBO data is fascinating.  1969 was a season where the QBO was
positive and followed 22 months of negative readings ending in the
spring of 1969. Tip followed in the West Pacific 16 months of
positive QBO readings in the midst of a very short but intense set of
negative readings:


http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/qbo.data

=======JAN-----FEB-----MAR-----APR------MAY----JUNE---JULY----AUG-----
SEP-----OCT-----NOV-----DEC

1978    3.84    6.54    9.92   12.20   11.79    8.30    5.83
6.04    6.11    6.35    4.83    1.54
1979    1.86    4.12    0.89   -3.57  -12.90  -19.60  -21.27  -
22.24  -22.70  -23.32  -22.20  -16.99
1980  -10.11   -5.65   -2.90    2.31    6.24    7.33    8.74
9.61   12.67   13.10   12.15    9.73

Camille, as discussed, was a storm forming as an El Nino turned into
a La Nina.  Tip occurred in relatively neutral ENSO conditions on
either side of the storm.  The SOI index was neatly flipping back and
forth, but after the storm, one of the largest El Ninos of all time
occurred.  I would point out that when the SOI is flipping like this,
its modulation by gas exchange and there isn't a sustained enough
wind between Darwin or Tahiti for the electrical property of
INDUCTION to start to have a conductivity or impendence meaning on
the capacitive couplings that are define the dynamics of these larger
storms.  It should be appreciated that even though Tip churned
intensely for a few days that during that time, electrically, the
intense kvolt transients have significant longer term climatology
meaning to the global electrical patterns that define cloud
microphysics.

Yikes!  I sort of lost track of how long it had been since my last
report.  Sorry about that!

At least I do have some interesting stuff to report this time,
including flares!  The sun has been producing large sunspots of late,
and one of them finally developed the magnetic complexity to generate
some significant flares.  Region 758 has fired off four M-class flares
since my last report.  There doesn't appear to be much in the way of
CME activity, though.  The flares have all been relatively short
duration events, which are less likely to produce a CME.  Sunspot
regions 758 and 759 both have the ability to create a significant
flare.  Region 758 is closing in on the western limb of the solar
disk, but region 759 is a new arrival.  Look for the M-class flares to
have a good chance of continuing over the next several days.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 117
SFI : 125
A index : 7
K index : 2

Solar wind speed : 471.9 km/sec
Solar wind density : 4.3 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 1.6 nPa

IMF : 5.8 nT
IMF Orientation : 0.1 nT South

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : B4

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
Space weather for the past 24 hours has been minor. Radio blackouts
reaching the R1 level occurred.

Forecast for the next 24 hours :
Space weather for the next 24 hours is expected to be minor. Radio
blackouts reaching the R1 level are expected.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be moderate for the next three days.
Regions 758 and 759 (N12E33) continue to harbor a good potential for
M-class activity with a slight chance for a major or proton producing
flare.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled for the
next three days.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
11-May-2005   	  1938Z   	  M1.1
11-May-2005   	  0641Z   	  M1.2
10-May-2005   	  0523Z   	  M1.3
07-May-2005   	  0813Z   	  M1.4

http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-/phy-/elect_induction-/a-phy-
elect_induction-elect_induction_files/image027.jpg

Fleming's right hand rule is shown here.

This rule, for instance, explains why the warming in the Peninsula
region of the Southern Ocean differs from the cooling in the
circumpolar regions. It's all about direction of a moving conductor--
in this instance, the oceans.

And if you weren't able to follow my discussion about the QBO and
Camille and Tip, then consider Fleming's LEFT hand rule and that the
mechanical direction of the conductor explains the orientation of
currents and the magnetic fields involved. Flips indeed occur, and
since we are talking about such kinds of forcings, we can then talk
about control devices, including designer.

Let's define the right hand rule:

Thumb = direction of movement

First finger = field direction

Second finger = induced conventional current

In the case of his Right Hand Rule, the second finger (the bird
finger) is the important one. It shows the direction of the induced
current (conventional current) if you are moving in the thumb
direction through a magnetic field in the first finger direction.
That current vector is of POSITIVE current.

You have to remember that:

The Left Hand Rule is for the motor effect (it tells you what force
will be produced on a current carrying conductor in a field).

The Right Hand Rule is for the generator effect (it tells you in what
direction a current is induced in a conductor moved through a
magnetic field).

Equatorial Currents in the tropics as moving conductor. These are
moving conductors, as salt water is moving on the surface of the
oceans.

Tropical Pacific. The North and South Equatorials move from east to
west and the Equatorial countercurrent inbetween those currents moves
from west to east. This comes into play when describing the ITCZ, or
the inter tropical convergence zone for those unfriendly with
tropical vernacular.

There is some tricky parts, however. For instance, the earth's north
pole is not a magnetic north pole.

A compass points to the north pole but does indeed have a north pole
pointing at the earth's geometric north, yet, opposites attract, so,
therefore, what the bar magnet in your compass is pointing at is the
magnetic SOUTH pole of the earth, which itself is behaving like a bar
magnet. And as I said, the current is POSITIVE. That is,
conceptually, the finger points to a positive current flow.
Electrons, or negative charges, would go the other way.

So, here is the first question to appreciating the capacitive
couplings in the tropics and the ITCZ. What is the sign and direction
of electrical current at the equatorial counter current from
induction through the earth's magnetic field using Fleming's right
hand rule?

Magnetic north on earth is to the geographic SOUTH or towards you on
a map on the table with geographic south nearest you. So when you
apply Fleming's right hand rule you point your finger to the south
pole. The moving conductor runs east with the counter current
equatorial in the Pacific. That means that the direction of
electrical current flow from induction of the movement of the counter
current against the earth's magnetic field is a vector down into the
ocean. The next trick is that this follows the traditional definition
of electrical current flow, namely positive terminal of the battery
to the negative terminal. That is, it is looking how POSITIVE current
flows as opposites attract. The difficulty is that when you are
talking about electrons movement, it is the other way. Okay? So the
vector into the ocean is positive ions, and the electrons are
actually a vector UP out of the ocean.

Now, why is that important here? Mmm? Because the ionosphere is
relatively POSITIVELY charged from lightning strikes around the
world, and that means that between the warm and conductive tropics,
where the counter current exists, and the ionosphere, there is a
relatively intense capacitive coupling which makes it difficult for
clouds and heat trapping ice to form per the China paper. This, for
those not following, describes the ELECTRICAL mechanism of the ITCZ!
The earth's magnetic field can move as much as 40 km in a single day,
and there is paleo evidence of magnetic shifts of several degrees a
day in hardening lava millions of years ago. That's fast enough to
actually SEE on your compass.  The movement of field and currents are
related to one another, so that cloud and strike behaviors which
react to the earth's magnetic field can also cause it, which presents
an easy way to relate back to the biosphere and modulation.

For instance, with my recent conversation with an oncologist I
described the symbiotic relationships of early earth whereby
radiation and chemistry would have damaged nucleotides.  The problem
is in the modulation of the earth's magnetic field, the biosphere may
PURPOSELY 'damage' itself by such radiation or harmful chemistry--
then form symbiotic relationships with it--in order to bring about
the EMF modulation required.


========================

35K plus strike event pictured above resulted in 91 INVEST!

First large strike levels of the season as seen real time at
http://www.lightningstorm.com (over 33k).

I noticed early today that the strike pattern moved  from a NW to SE
or even a N to S pattern to what I call the hydrate field to hydrate
field pattern, just over the Mississippi delta and just over the
Carolinas . . . and our hot season is starting now here in Redding
California--like a clock after extremely heavy rains for a week.  And
sure enough, here comes 91L!

http://tcweb.fnmoc.navy.mil/tc-bin/tc_home.cgi

Also 96W.INVEST is now up.

2LT question?

The question is--to what degree would you expect the organization and
heat of a northern hemisphere tropical feature to run NORTH in order
to obey the laws of thermodynamics.  Namely law number two.  For
those of you who don't follow directly, here is a good starter link:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4


Now, I make the assumption that yesterday's 35k plus strike event in
the CONUS started a local 'organization', if you will, of tropical
convection.  The waters in the tropics even this time of year are
fairly warm and the capacitive couplings required by the China paper
can exist--the ocean is warm and conductive enough.  While usually
this does not result in a full blown cyclone there this time of year--
for this we should wait another couple weeks, this region is a
starting point for convection that crosses over Central America into
the EPAC and indeed the EPAC season gets underway in May.  And
clearly, the WPAC season is on now, too--it's really year round.

Anyway, here is what I think.  I think that INDUCTION plays a huge
role here, and I know that with different times of season the
ionosphere varies and SSTs and jet patterns vary to determine where
strikes occur that power storms and where conductive pathways exist,
and so forth.  However, once the storms get going in the ITCZ,
induction starts to become extremely important, as these storms tend
to do better from a 2LT standpoint in the ITCZ as they move WEST.
That has huge implications electrically, as I have explained per
Fleming's right hand rule.  It would tend to indicate that in the
counter current regions, or the Equatorial regions, as the cloud
cover increases and the voltages increase from strikes globally, that
a westward motion tends to bring about the most capacitive couples to
cohesively form clouds.

So, on the one hand while a storm wants to move toward 'disorder', or
generally north in the northern hemisphere, the system isn't 'closed'
in the sense that new order is created along the ITCZ by the patterns
of electrical activity that are occurring.

As always, as this page indicates, life further confounds our sense
of the second law, because after 4 billion years, life itself seeks a
genetic resting place that moves on a much different timescale as
these thermal and electrical inputs--to a living earth.

** G-1 Geomagnetic Storm In Progress **
** S-3 Solar Radiation Storm In Progress **
** Aurora Watch In Effect **

On the 13th, sunspot region 759 fired off a powerful M-8 class flare.
  That's definitely the strongest flare we've seen in a long time.  It
was also a long-duration event, and produced a full-halo CME.  That
CME has just arrived here at Earth, setting off a geomagnetic storm.
The solar wind speed is on the high side of 950 km/sec.  It's too soon
to tell right now exactly how the geomagnetic field will respond to
the shock wave, and how strong the geomagnetic storm will become.  The
active conditions are expected to persist for the next 24 hours.  The
proton blast from the flare has swamped the solar wind sensors on the
Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite.  Solar wind data is
therefore coming from the Solar and Heliospheric Observer (SOHO)
spacecraft.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 91
SFI : 100
A index : 7
K index : 5

Solar wind speed : 957 km/sec
Solar wind density : 25.5 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : N/A

IMF : 12.5 nT
IMF Orientation : 7.0 nT North

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : B6

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
Space weather for the past 24 hours has been strong. Geomagnetic
storms reaching the G1 level occurred. Solar radiation storms reaching
the S3 level occurred.

Forecast for the next 24 hours :
Space weather for the next 24 hours is expected to be strong.
Geomagnetic storms reaching the G1 level are expected. Solar radiation
storms reaching the S3 level are expected.

Solar activity forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be moderate. Region 759 continues to
have a high potential for M-class activity, and slight chance for
further proton-producing flare activity. The current energetic proton
flux is expected to remain elevated through 16 May.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be at active to minor storm
levels from 15 through 16 May, with a slight chance of an isolated
period of major storm levels. The flare from Region 759 on 13 May at
1457Z, produced a significant, Earth-directed, coronal mass ejection.
The shock is expected to arrive late on the 15th, and remain
geoeffective through the 16th.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
13-May-2005   	  1657Z   	  M8.0
12-May-2005   	  1741Z   	  M1.4
12-May-2005   	  0733Z   	  M1.6
11-May-2005   	  1938Z   	  M1.1
11-May-2005   	  0641Z   	  M1.2
10-May-2005   	  0523Z   	  M1.3

A number of thoughts are brought on by a scanning of abstracts.  Of
course, as all of you know, I must comment that NONE of these
scholars is looking at the ELECTRICAL implications of salinity
changes.  However,  the models or studies do suggest is a number of
things of significance as far as I am concerned:

First, the hydrological model of salinity can be overwhelmed by
airborne transport.  IOWs, if the Atlantic is too saline, water
certainly will sink to the depths and move to the Pacific--over huge
timescales.  But salinity differences can change because increases in
conductivity bring about storms--that increase the fresh water
content--WAY faster than the oceans can balance by hydrology.

Second, wind and clouds cause THC, not just salt content.  So if the
clouds are modulated, so is the THC, as far as I am concerned.

Third, it isn't so much that the failing of the THC in the Atlantic
leaves more heat energy in the tropics for cyclonic activity--with
that I wholly disagree. Rather, when you consider that in 1998 SSTs
in the Pacific dropped 10 degF IN ONE MONTH, does the realization
that heat is won or lost very quickly from the surface no matter
where if there is not proper heat trapping clouds.  Therefore, what
is WAY MORE SIGNIFICANT is the increases in CONDUCTIVITY brought
about by the decrease in salt sinking of the THC as presently
situated.  That then increases these cyclonic behaviors, as we have
seen.

Fourth,  in terms of climate STABILITY, there is actually a stability
in the past glaciation, as well as certainly an even greater
stability in the present Holeocine.  But they are two different
dynamics, driven by salinity AND temperature of the oceans and the
conductivity meaning that both sets of conditions contain.  While the
colder ocean is more resistive approximately by a percent per
degreeF,  with ice on the terresphere the ocean has more salt to
water, and it is, therefore, more conductive.  Both glaciated periods
and less glaciatied periods have, electrically, equillibriums.

Fifth, this is a MODULATED dynamic by the biosphere, and what is
modulated ultimately is the earth's magnetic field.  This is where
human activity should be considered--what defects in living earth
feedback loops are humans causing and how do these changes to
modulating processes impact these stabilities, seen even in
glaciations.  The danger, of course, is INSTABILITY which leads to a
Day After Tomorrow event and difficult, less stabile following
equillibriums.

Here are the abstracts complied by a power from the Global Warming
yahoo group:


Part I . Studies that demonstrate the stability of the Holocene

The role of the thermohaline circulation in abrupt climate change
Clark, P.U., Pisias, N.G., Stocker, T.F. and Weaver, A.J.  2002.

The role of the thermohaline circulation in abrupt climate change.
Nature 415: 863-869* Department of Geosciences, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA † College of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
97331, USA

‡ Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern, Physics
Institute, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
§ School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, PO Box
3055, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3P6, Canada

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
P.U.C. (e-mail: clarkp@...).

The possibility of a reduced Atlantic thermohaline circulation in
response to increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations has been
demonstrated in a number of simulations with general circulation
models of the coupled ocean–atmosphere system. But it remains
difficult to assess the likelihood of future changes in the
thermohaline circulation, mainly owing to poorly constrained model
parameterizations and uncertainties in the response of the climate
system to greenhouse warming. Analyses of past abrupt climate changes
help to solve these problems. Data and models both suggest that
abrupt climate change during the last glaciation originated through
changes in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to small
changes in the hydrological cycle. Atmospheric and oceanic responses
to these changes were then transmitted globally through a number of
feedbacks. The palaeoclimate data and the model results also indicate
that the stability of the thermohaline circulation depends on the
mean climate state.

Recent modelling ideas postulate an atmosphere–ocean system during
the last glaciation that was extremely close to a threshold, thus
requiring very weak freshwater forcing to trigger abrupt changes of
the THC16, 60. Whether the sequence of abrupt events originates from
unknown periodic forcing43, 60 or instabilities and feedbacks
associated with circum-Atlantic ice sheets16, 38 remains an open
question. Furthermore, qualitative consistence with the
palaeoclimatic records remains very sensitive to parameter choices in
these models. The basic question about the origin of abrupt change is
therefore not solved. However, all model simulations until now point
towards the key role of the freshwater balance in the Atlantic Ocean.
More realistic models and improved reconstructions of the various
components of the hydrological cycle (precipitation, run-off, iceberg
discharge, sea ice) are urgently needed.

Paradoxically, although the THC in current models responds to
freshwater forcings without delay, the largest deglacial meltwater
event on record, referred to as meltwater pulse 1A (MWP-1A), occurs
more than 1,000 years before the next significant change in the THC
associated with the Younger Dryas cold interval39. This paradox may
be resolved, however, if MWP-1A originated largely from the Antarctic
Ice Sheet40, where its impact on the Atlantic THC would be
substantially reduced.

Draut, A.E., Raymo, M.E., McManus, J.F. and Oppo, D.W.  2003.
Climate stability during the Pliocene warm period.  Paleoceanography
18: 10.1029/2003PA000889.

We present a high-resolution climate record from a sediment core
spanning an 80-ky interval of time during the mid-Pliocene epoch,
when warmer conditions and lower global ice volume prevailed
worldwide. Oxygen and carbon isotope analyses were made on benthic
and planktonic foraminifera from ODP Site 981 in the North Atlantic.
The amplitude and approximate recurrence interval of suborbital
variations in these records are comparable to those of Holocene and
Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS 11) records from the North Atlantic. We
conclude that the mid-Pliocene warm interval was a time of relative
climatic stability.
These results suggest that warmer climatic conditions alone may not
necessarily enhance variability in the climate system, a finding that
may facilitate predictions of 21st century climatic response to
anthropogenic warming.

4.5. Implications for Climatic Behavior During Warm Conditions With
Low Ice Volume [36] Our high-resolution data points to a relatively
stable climate during the mid-Pliocene warm period, analogous to
millennial-scale stability within the Holocene and MIS 11. Millennial-
scale climate fluctuations appear to occur with reduced amplitude
during warm episodes [see also Oppo et al., 1998; McManus et al.,
1999, 2003; McIntyre et al., 2001] and our results are consistent
with the assertion by
McManus et al. [1999] that glacial conditions represented by a sea-
level decrease of _20–50 m must be surpassed in
order for large-amplitude millennial-scale variability to be evident.

5. Summary and Conclusions [39] Analyses of d18O and d13C in benthic
and planktonic foraminifera in an 80-kyr North Atlantic sedimentary
sequence from the mid-Pliocene warm period reveal that although
millennial-scale fluctuations exist in these
records, they occur with low amplitude compared with millennial-scale
variations that occur during glacial times.
The mid-Pliocene warm period thus appears to have been an interval of
relative climatic stability, similar to more
recent warm intervals such as the Holocene or MIS 11. The Pliocene
warm period effectively behaves like an
extended interglacial interval. The results of this work support
other research that has suggested that warm
temperatures and low global ice volume may dampen high-frequency
variations within the climate system,
imposing relative stability on millennial timescales. These findings
may facilitate prediction of climatic response and
sensitivity to anthropogenic perturbations of the hydrologic cycle at
high northern latitudes.

Nature 409, 153 – 158 (11 January 2001); doi:10.1038/35051500

Rapid changes of glacial climate simulated in a coupled climate
model  ANDREY GANOPOLSKI AND STEFAN RAHMSTORF
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 60 12 03, 14412
Potsdam, Germany Correspondence and requests for materials should be
addressed to A.G.  (e-mail: ganopolski@...).

Abrupt changes in climate, termed Dansgaard–Oeschger and Heinrich
events, have punctuated the last glacial period ( 100–10 kyr ago) but
not the Holocene (the past 10 kyr). Here we use an intermediate-
complexity climate model to investigate the stability of glacial
climate, and we find that only one mode of Atlantic Ocean circulation
is stable: a cold mode with deep water formation in the Atlantic
Ocean south of Iceland. However, a 'warm' circulation mode similar to
the present-day Atlantic Ocean is only marginally unstable, and
temporary transitions to this warm mode can easily be triggered. This
leads to abrupt warm events in the model which share many
characteristics of the observed Dansgaard–Oeschger events. For a
large freshwater input (such as a large release of icebergs), the
model's deep water formation is temporarily switched off, causing no
strong cooling in Greenland but warming in Antarctica, as is observed
for Heinrich events. Our stability analysis provides an explanation
why glacial climate is much more variable than Holocene climate.

Sediment-Color Record from the Northeast Atlantic Reveals Patterns of
Millennial-Scale Climate Variability during the Past 500,000 Years

Quaternary Research    January 2002, vol. 57, no. 1,   pp. 49-57(9)

Helmke J.P. [1]; Schulz M. [2]; Bauch H.A. [3]

[1] GEOMAR Research Center for Marine Geosciences, Wischhofstr. 1-3,
Kiel, D-24148, Germany [2] Institute for Geosciences, University of
Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 40, Kiel, D-24118, Germany [3] Alfred-Wegener
Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven,
Columbusstrasse, D-27568, Germany

Abstract:

A 500,000-yr-long deep-sea sediment-color record from the Northeast
Atlantic was investigated to reconstruct the evolution of late
Pleistocene climate variability on millennial time scales. Variations
of the red–green color intensity are probably caused by climatically
induced changes in the ice-rafted input of red-colored iron-bearing
terrigenous material to the core site. The resolution of the age
model impedes the detection of distinct spectral features at sub-
Milankovitch periodicities. Hence, millennial-scale climate
variability is quantified as time-dependent variance of the high-pass
filtered color time series. The course of the estimated variance
shows distinct patterns, which can be linked to continental ice mass.
During the past 500,000 yr, large-amplitude millennial-scale climate
variability occurs only if continental ice mass exceeds a threshold
level, equivalent to sea level at approximately 40% of the lowering
during the last glacial maximum. © 2002 University of Washington.

Part II GCM studies

doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<1809:L>2.0.CO;2
Journal of Climate: Vol. 13, No. 11, pp. 1809–1813.

Tropical Stabilization of the Thermohaline Circulation in a
Greenhouse Warming Simulation

M. Latif, E. Roeckner, U. Mikolajewicz, and R. Voss Max-Planck-
Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany (Manuscript received 22
November 1999, 23 December 1999)

ABSTRACT

Most global climate models simulate a weakening of the North Atlantic
thermohaline circulation (THC) in response to enhanced greenhouse
warming. Both surface warming and freshening in high latitudes, the
so-called sinking region, contribute to the weakening of the THC.
Some models even simulate a complete breakdown of the THC at
sufficiently strong forcing. Here results are presented from a state-
of-the-art global climate model that does not simulate a weakening of
the THC in response to greenhouse warming. Large-scale air–sea
interactions in the Tropics, similar to those operating during
present-day El Niños, lead to anomalously high salinities in the
tropical Atlantic. These are advected into the sinking region,
thereby increasing the surface density and compensating the effects
of the local warming and freshening.


JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 106, NO. D21, PAGES 27,335–
27,354, 2001

Effects of glacial meltwater in the GISS coupled atmosphere-ocean
model, 1, North Atlantic Deep Water response
D. Rind Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University,
New York,  New York P. deMenocal Goddard Institute for Space Studies
at Columbia University, New York,  New York G. Russell Goddard
Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University, New York,  New
York S. Sheth Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia
University, New York, New York D. Collins Goddard Institute for Space
Studies at Columbia University, New York, New York G. Schmidt Goddard
Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University, New York, New
York J. Teller Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia
University, New York, New York

Abstract

Varying magnitudes of freshwater input through the St. Lawrence are
added to different versions of the GISS coupled atmosphere-ocean
model. The results show a generally linear response in percentage
North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) reduction to the volume of water
added without any obvious threshold effects. When the estimated best
guess freshwater input for the Allerod-Younger Dryas interval is
added, only small reductions in NADW production occur in less than a
century, with complete cessation requiring more than 300 years.

Comment: Study shows no threshold. Utilizes realistic quantities.

Bleck, R. and Sun, S.  2004.  Diagnostics of the oceanic thermohaline
circulation in a coupled climate model.  Global and Planetary Change
40: 233-248.

Excerpt from Instroduction: 1. Introduction
The need to distinguish natural variability from manmade trends in
the earth's climate system provides
a driving force for the development not only of coupled atmosphere–
ocean–land models, but also of
tools useful for diagnosing a plethora of interaction modes in the
coupled system. One particularly striking
example of an interaction is the possible slowdown of the Atlantic
branch of the oceanic meridional
overturning circulation (MOC) during global warming.

Such a slowdown is projected by most of today's climate models
according to results compiled in Fig.
9.21 of IPCC (2001). Sun and Bleck (2001b) recently reported on
coupled simulations carried out with the GISS atmospheric
model and a hybrid-isopycnic coordinate ocean model called HYCOM
(Bleck, 2002). In their simulation,
the Atlantic MOC maintains its strength as atmospheric CO2
concentration gradually increases at
the rate of 1% per year to twice its initial value, remaining
constant thereafter.

Wu, P., Wood, R. and Stott, P.  2004.  Does the recent freshening
trend in the North Atlantic indicate a weakening thermohaline
circulation?  Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003GL018584.

4. Conclusions
[9] We have analysed an ensemble of four HadCM3 simulations forced
with all historical external (anthropogenic
and natural) forcings. The model has reproduced a systematic
freshening in the deep North Atlantic Ocean
during the past four decades very similar to the reports of an
observed freshening trend by Dickson et al. [2002] and
Curry et al. [2003]. From the model simulations, we can trace such a
freshening trend to the Arctic Ocean where sea
surface salinity undergoes a large decreasing trend due to melt ice
and river runoff during the same period. However,
we do not find a decreasing trend of the North Atlantic THC. On the
contrary, the THC has an upward trend
diagnostically associated with an increased north-south upper ocean
density gradient between the sub-polar North
Atlantic and the mid-low latitudes.

[10] This freshening trend does not seem to be consistent with an
anthropogenically forced climate change scenario.
Although climate models project a freshening trend due to intensified
global hydrological cycle for the early part of the
21st century under global warming, the freshening trend comes
together with a weakening THC and a collapse of
Labrador Sea convection. Both the observed and the simulated
freshening for the past four decades are associated
with the NEADW as well as the LSW. Instead of collapsing, we see an
intensified Labrador Sea convection in both
model and observations. In the model runs this is not associated with
any trend in the NAO. Our analysis based
on model simulations does not seem to support an interpretation of
the observed freshening trend as an early signal of
climate change due to human activities.



Part III Alternative theories to the Hydrological/Temperature theory

Nature 405, 775 – 778 (15 June 2000); doi:10.1038/35015531

Significant dissipation of tidal energy in the deep ocean inferred
from satellite altimeter data

G. D. EGBERT* AND R. D. RAY†

* College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
† NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Code 926, Greenbelt, Maryland
20771, USA Correspondence and requests for materials should be
addressed to G.D.E. (e-mail: egbert@...).

How and where the ocean tides dissipate their energy are long-
standing questions that have consequences ranging from the history of
the Moon to the mixing of the oceans. Historically, the principal
sink of tidal energy has been thought to be bottom friction in
shallow seas. There has long been suggestive evidence, however, that
tidal dissipation also occurs in the open ocean through the
scattering by ocean-bottom topography of surface tides into internal
waves, but estimates of the magnitude of this possible sink have
varied widely. Here we use satellite altimeter data from
Topex/Poseidon to map empirically the tidal energy dissipation. We
show that approximately 1012 watts—that is, 1 TW, representing 25–30%
of the total dissipation—occurs in the deep ocean, generally near
areas of rough topography. Of the estimated 2 TW of mixing energy
required to maintain the large-scale thermohaline circulation of the
ocean, one-half could therefore be provided by the tides, with the
other half coming from action on the surface of the ocean.


OCEANOGRAPHY:
What Is the Thermohaline Circulation?
Carl Wunsch*
The author is in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary
Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 01239,
USA. E-mail: cwunsch@...

Excerpt:

If the flow is integrated zonally in the ocean (see the figure), one
notices what is best called a meridional overturning circulation
(MOC) (3). Features such as the Gulf Stream mass flux at high
latitudes that is associated, at least loosely, with regions of
severe heat loss to the atmosphere. In these regions, the fluid
becomes dense and convectively unstable; the downward flux and
subsequent lateral flow thus appear to be driven by thermal and
evaporative forcing from the atmosphere. The ocean seems to act like
a heat engine, in analogy to the atmosphere. Some authors apparently
think of this convective mode of motion as the thermohaline
circulation. But results of the past few years suggest that such a
convectively driven mass flux is impossible. There are several lines
of argument. The first goes back to Sandström (4), who pointed out
that when a fluid is heated and cooled at the same pressure (or
heated at a lower pressure), no significant work can be extracted
from the flow, with the region below the cold source becoming
homogeneous.

. . .

The conclusion from this and other lines of evidence is that the
ocean's mass flux is sustained primarily by the wind, and secondarily
by tidal forcing. Both in models and the real ocean, surface buoyancy
boundary conditions strongly influence the transport of heat and
salt, because the fluid must become dense enough to sink, but these
boundary conditions do not actually drive the circulation.

. . .

Timmermann, A. and Goosse, H.  2004.  Is the wind stress forcing
essential for the meriodional overturning circulation?  Geophysical
Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003GL018777.

Abstract

We use a global coupled atmosphere-ocean sea-ice model of
intermediate complexity to demonstrate that wind-forcing is a crucial
element to sustain meridional overturning flow in the Atlantic.
Neglecting wind-stress in our multi-century-long simulations leads to
a complete shutdown of the conveyor belt circulation. This result may
have tremendous impacts for an assessment of the sensitivity of 2-d
climate models which typically do not capture wind-driven gyres. It
is argued that wind effects may be a key element in determining the
fate and length of a collapsed THC state. Possible paleo implications
will be discussed.


GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 6, 1329,
doi:10.1029/2002GL016564, 2003

Freshwater teleconnections and ocean thermohaline circulation

Dan Seidov and Bernd J. Haupt Environment Institute, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA Received 5
November 2002; accepted 16 January 2003; published 27 March 2003
.
[1] Asymmetry of the Atlantic and Pacific sea surface salinity (SSS)
is recognized as an important element of the
global ocean thermohaline circulation. However, a threshold of such
asymmetry that may trigger a true global deepocean
conveyor has not yet been examined. A combined effect of the Atlantic-
Pacific and the Southern Ocean
surface salinity asymmetries also has not yet been clearly shown. We
address these issues and conclude that Atlantic-
Pacific SSS asymmetry is one of the most critical elements for
maintaining the global ocean conveyor. Our experiments
suggest, albeit preliminary, that high-latitudinal freshwater
impacts, as a mechanism of altering global ocean
thermohaline circulation, may be less effective than interbasin
freshwater communications.


Atlantic deep circulation controlled by freshening in the Southern
Ocean

Oleg A. Saenko and Andrew J. Weaver
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria,
Canada

Andreas Schmittner
Institut fu¨ r Geowissenschaften, Universita¨t Kiel, Kiel, Germany

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 14, 1754,
doi:10.1029/2003GL017681, 2003

From the Conclusions:

[19] Our results are in line with results of Stocker et al. [1992]
and more recent results of Seidov and Haupt [2003]
on the effect of salinity contrast between the North Atlantic and the
Southern Ocean on the Atlantic MOC. As we show,
however, the magnitude of this salinity contrast can, in turn, be
controlled by the ocean circulation itself through a
positive feedback between the circulation and salinity. [20] Our
results may have implications for understanding
the response of the Atlantic MOC in global warming scenarios. It has
often been pointed out that in a warmer
climate, an intensified hydrological cycle would weaken the MOC by
transporting more moisture northward. Our results
suggest that the intensified hydrological cycle could also tend to
stabilize the MOC by transporting more moisture
southward.

Part IV  Odds and Ends

Reconstructing, Monitoring, and Predicting Multidecadal-Scale Changes
in the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation with Sea Surface
Temperature

M. Latif
Institut für Meereskunde, Kiel, Germany E. Roeckner, M. Botzet, M.
Esch, H. Haak, S. Hagemann, J. Jungclaus, S. Legutke, S. Marsland,
and U. Mikolajewicz Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg,
Germany J. Mitchell Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction
and Research, Bracknell, Berkshire, United Kingdom (Manuscript
received 26 November 2002, in final form 17 October 2003)

ABSTRACT
Sea surface temperature (SST) observations in the North Atlantic
indicate the existence of strong multidecadal variability with a
unique spatial structure. It is shown by means of a new global
climate model, which does not employ flux adjustments, that the
multidecadal SST variability is closely related to variations in the
North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC). The close
correspondence between the North Atlantic SST and THC variabilities
allows, in conjunction with the dynamical inertia of the THC, for the
prediction of the slowly varying component of the North Atlantic
climate system. It is shown additionally that past variations of the
North Atlantic THC can be reconstructed from a simple North Atlantic
SST index and that future, anthropogenically forced changes in the
THC can be easily monitored by observing SSTs. The latter is
confirmed by another state-of-the-art global climate model. Finally,
the strong multidecadal variability may mask an anthropogenic signal
in the North Atlantic for some decades.


PALEOCEANOGRAPHY, VOL. 18, NO. 4, 1079, doi:10.1029/2002PA000840, 2003

Meltwater flooding events in the Gulf of Mexico revisited:
Implications for rapid climate changes during the last deglaciation
Paul Aharon Department of Geological Sciences, University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Abstract

North American freshwater runoff records have been used to support
the case that climate flickers were caused by shutdowns of the ocean
thermohaline circulation (THC) resulting from reversals of meltwater
discharges. Inconsistencies in the documentation of these meltwater
switches, however, continue to fuel the debate on the cause/s of the
oscillatory nature of the deglacial climate. New oxygen and carbon
isotope records from the northern Gulf of Mexico depict in
exceptional detail the succession of meltwater floods and pauses
through the southern routing during the interval 16 to 8.9 ka (14C
years BP; ka, kiloannum). The records underscore the bimodal role
played by the Gulf of Mexico as a destination of meltwater discharges
from the receding Laurentide Ice Sheet. The evidence indicates that
the Gulf of Mexico acted as the principal source of superfloods at
13.4, 12.6, and 11.9 ka that reached the North Atlantic and
contributed significantly to density stratification, disruption of
ocean ventilation, and cold reversals. Gulf of Mexico lapsed into
a "relief valve" position in post-Younger Dryas time, when meltwater
discharges were rerouted south at 9.9, 9.7, 9.4, and 9.1 ka, thus
temporarily interrupting North Atlantic-bound freshwater discharges
from Lake Agassiz. The history of meltwater events in the Gulf of
Mexico contradicts the model that meltwater flow via the eastern
outlets into the North Atlantic disrupted the ocean THC, causing
cooling, while diversions to the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi
River enhanced THC and warming.
Received 20 August 2002; accepted 9 July 2003; published 8 October
2003.


Decadal variability in the outflow from the Nordic seas to the deep
Atlantic Ocean

SHELDON BACON1

Room 256/43, Southampton Oceanography Centre, Empress Dock,
Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK Correspondence and requests for materials
should be addressed to the author (e-mail: S.Bacon@...).
Nature 394, 871 – 874 (27 August 1998); doi:10.1038/29736

The global thermohaline circulation is the oceanic overturning mode,
which is manifested in the North Atlantic Ocean as northward-flowing
surface waters which sink in the Nordic (Greenland, Iceland and
Norwegian) seas and return southwards—after overflowing the Greenland–
Scotland ridge—as deep water. This process has been termed
the 'conveyor belt', and is believed to keep Europe 5–8 °C warmer
than it would be if the conveyor were to shut down. The variability
of today's conveyor belt is therefore an important component of
climate regulation. The Nordic seas are the only Northern Hemisphere
source of deep water and a previous study has revealed no long-term
variability in the outflow of deep water from the Nordic seas to the
Atlantic Ocean. Here I use flows derived from hydrographic data to
show that this outflow has approximately doubled, and then returned
to previous values, over the past four decades. I present evidence
which suggests that this variability is forced by variability in
polar air temperature, which in turn may be connected to the recently
reported Arctic warming.

The space weather over this past weekend was definitely impressive to
witness.  At one point, G-5 geomagnetic storm conditions existed.
Aurora were seen and photographed as far south as Arizona.  Incredible
aurora pictures were captured all over North America, as can be seen
here : http://www.spaceweather.com/aurora/gallery_01may05_page2.htm .
  So what's happening now?  Well, the source of this past weekend's
action, sunspot region 759, is decaying and approaching the western
limb of the solar disk.  It will soon be out of view.  It did manage
to get off a parting shot.  There was an M1.8 flare on the 17th, and
it produced a faint full-halo CME.  It should be arriving at Earth
within the next 24 hours.  Don't expect to see anything like what we
saw last weekend, but the activity level could kick back up a bit.

The current solar and geomagnetic conditions are :

NOAA sunspot number : 46
SFI : 84
A index : 13
K index : 2

Solar wind speed : 508.1 km/sec
Solar wind density : 2.3 protons/cc
Solar wind pressure : 1.0 nPa

IMF : 7.3 nT
IMF Orientation : 2.2 nT North

GOES-12 Background X-ray Flux level : A8

Conditions for the last 24 hours :
No space weather storms were observed for the past 24 hours.

Forecast for the next 24 hours
No space weather storms are expected for the next 24 hours.

Solar Activity Forecast :
Solar activity is expected to be very low to low with a chance for an
isolated M-flare.

Geomagnetic activity forecast :
The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to active on 19 May as a
faint full halo CME, from 17 May, may arrive late in the day.
Unsettled conditions are expected on 20 May. Quiet to unsettled
conditions are expected on 21 May.

Recent significant solar flare activity :
17-May-2005   	  0239Z   	  M1.8
   16-May-2005   	  0908Z   	  M1.6
   16-May-2005   	  0243Z   	  M1.4
   15-May-2005   	  2236Z   	  M3.5