Electric Weather
First unread post • 220 posts • Page 4 of 15 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15
Re: Anthony Watts: NCAR spots the "transistor effect"
by Birkeland » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:17 pm
mharratsc wrote: Very intriguing. These guys could be the ones who complete some research into solar plasma dynamics that proves a great deal of what Wal Thornhill has been espousing for some time... I hope he's reading this!
I have a feeling that EU is going to be getting some confirmatory remarks when they start realizing that the Earth is part of a circuit, and not an oversized ornament hanging 'in the wind of the Sun'.
Could be. Physics professor Nir Shaviv are talking about a galactic climate connection with reference to energy physicist and solar energy system expert Edward J. Ney:
One mechanism which can give rise to a notable solar/climate link was suggested by the late Edward Ney of the U. of Minnesota, in 1959. He suggested that any climatic sensitivity to the density of tropospheric ions would immediately link solar activity to climate. This is because the solar wind modulates the flux of high-energy particles coming from outside the solar system. These particles, the cosmic rays, are the dominant source of ionization in the troposphere. Thus, a more active sun which accelerates a stronger solar wind, would imply that as cosmic rays diffuse from the outskirts of the solar system to its center, they lose more energy. Consequently, a lower tropospheric ionization rate results. Over the 11-yr solar cycle and the long term variations in solar activity, these variations amount to typically a 10% change in this ionization rate. Moreover, it now appears that there is a climatic variable sensitive to the amount of tropospheric ionization - clouds - The Milky Way Galaxy's Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection
This is not a direct connection to Plasma Cosmology though, but they may get there in the end. In addition the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark is following a similar line of thinking.
If the system is that sensitive to change, what kind of effects can we expect from those HAARP-like systems conducting ionospheric 'stimulation'?? :\
I wouldn't worry too much about HAARP. For all we know they may already be on the right track working on some interesting stuff related to...well, one could only hope. I don't think HAARP is some kind of doomsday machine as some alarmists claim. Such claims and tinfoil-theories could be a cover up, but this is only speculations. There is a lot of energy out there just waiting to be sucked down to earth and put to valuable use.
BTW: HAARP Fluxgate Magnetometer
"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see" - Ayn Rand
by Birkeland » Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:56 am
Another solar/plasma reference to climate change by Australian geologist Bob Foster:
In 2004, NASA predicted an extra-powerful Cycle 24 starting in 2006, far stronger than modest Cycle 23 – thus supplementing IPCC's projected people-driven warming. As you might expect, there are very few people outside the 'mainstream' consensus policed by Royal Society, IPCC, NASA – and propagated by the great journals Science and Nature – with the expertise to challenge NASA on this esoteric topic. But happily, there are some. The collective angular momentum of the giant outer planets drives the Sun's highly-irregular orbit about the centre-of-mass of the solar system (as Newton knew); and the timing (albeit, not yet the magnitude) of consequential solar variability can therefore be predicted. By "variability" I don't mean in total solar irradiance; because TSI varies only by fractions of a percent. I am referring to the outflow of magnetised plasma from the Sun – which can vary by orders of magnitude at timings from quotidian to millennial - Global Cooling has Begun
by mharratsc » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:16 am
I think you might be right, Birkland.. seems like they're on to 'what' and 'where' but haven't got the 'how' down yet, like the EU paragons did.
As for HAARP, I'm not into conspiratorial issues, but HAARP's own website has stated that they can render sections of the ionosphere 'transparent' for hours... and these monkeys messing around with those big microwave guns don't have a clue as to what is really on the other side of that shield. :\
Maybe we might learn something if they energized a path strong enough to cause an equalization bolt reminiscent of close proximity cataclysm... might be neat to see how a big crater *really* forms.
by Birkeland » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:08 pm
mharratsc wrote: I think you might be right, Birkland.. seems like they're on to 'what' and 'where' but haven't got the 'how' down yet, like the EU paragons did.
Getting closer by the day now:
Fred Singer, August 31st, 2009: The tiny (~0.1%) variation of total solar irradiance (TSI) during the solar cycle is only part of the story. The much stronger variability is that of solar activity (solar wind and magnetic fields), which explains the observed modulation of Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR); in turn, the GCR affect cloudiness in the lower troposphere (the 'Svensmark mechanism'). And what makes me so sure about the Galactic Cosmic Ray hypothesis? It is the observational evidence from isotopic data in stalagmites. But the GCR explanation is not congenial to AGW alarmists. The latest (2007) IPCC report ignores the cosmic-ray effects and by focusing only on TSI, disingenuously considers solar influences on climate to be insignificant when compared to the forcing by greenhouse gases - Sunspots Just Part of The Story
About Fred Singer:
Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.
I don't think they tell everything they know. Let's hope they know what they're doing. I bet they do.
Re: In Slumber, Sun Reveals Effects on Earth's Climate!
by longcircuit » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:27 pm
More failed predictions than you can shake a stick at here.
Money quote (one among several):
First, remember what sunspots are–tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun's inner dynamo.
How does one tie knots in magnetism and then tangle them?
Crash, bam, tinkle.
longcircuit
Moderator: feel free to move this post here if you think it better belongs there.
by junglelord » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:30 am
Study says shines light on sun spot-climate link
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Small changes in the energy output of the sun can have a major impact on global weather patterns, such as the intensity of the Indian monsoon, that could be predicted years in advance, a team of scientists said.
The sun swings through an 11-year cycle measured in the number of sun spots on the surface that emit bursts of energy.
The difference in energy is only about 0.1 percent between a solar maximum and minimum and determining just how that small variation affects the world's climate has been one of the great challenges facing meteorologists.
Using a century of weather observations and complex computer models, the international team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in the United States showed that even a small increase in the sun's energy can intensify wind and rainfall patterns.
"Small changes in the sun's output over the 11-year solar cycle have long been known to have impacts on the global climate system," said Julie Arblaster, from the Center for Australian Weather and Climate Research, a co-author of the study published in the latest issue of the journal Science.
"Here we reconcile for the first time the mechanisms by which these small variations get amplified, resulting in cooler sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific and enhancing off-equatorial rainfall."
The researchers found that during periods of strong solar activity the air in the upper atmosphere, in a layer called the stratosphere, heats up. This occurs over the tropics, where sunlight is typically most intense.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE57R0L520090828
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
junglelord
by mharratsc » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:47 am
You have more faith in them than I, Brother Birkeland. I do hope you're right. I cannot get out of my head the picture of all those sailors on board that destroyer, lined up at the rails Parade Rest, wearing dark goggles that were to *protect* them from exposure to the radiation released from the atomic bomb test on the Bikini Atoll... :\
I mentioned it before, that I think the real boost for plasma physics to be accepted into mainstream is going to be through Meteorology. It hits the Mainstreamists in their egos. The Meteorology crowd doesn't have to worry about funding from the old sots in charge of money in the Astronomy/Astrophysics circles, but at the same time they cannot turn away the Meteorology people when they mention that they feel Earth weather begins in space- it's too warm and fuzzy of a feeling for them to discount! They absolutely adore it when other sciences come to them for information and assistance.
As that association grows, but likewise as meteorologists continue to learn functional plasma physics, more and more feedback from the quasi-accepted meteorologists will find it's way into the data that Mainstream will be exposed to. That exposure will assist in the tearing down of the old paradigm, along with the research by the Russians (whom don't seem to maintain such a dogmatic adherence to Einsteinian Cosmology (I made that up. Nice, eh? ) and the actual IEEE Engineers that continue to work with classical astrophysicists on new experiments down the road.
Bit by bit, logical analysis of data will begin to stand in stark contrast to the 'application of accepted theory' filter that they run all of their current observations through. Smoke and mirrors can only withstand close scrutiny for so long before the illusion fails.
I just hope it occurs soon enough that great voices like Don Scott, Tony Peratt, Wal Thornhill and others have a chance to feel the glow of vindication before they move on to that Great Plasma Lab in the Sky.
by Anaconda » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:24 am
Hi junglelord:
One thing to keep in mind when the 0.1 change of irradiance figure is used.
It only addresses the visible electromagnetic wave spectrum.
X-rays increase at maximum by 10 fold.
Ultra violet rays increase 2 or 3 fold.
There are increases in all segments of the electromagnetic wave spectrum of radiation, but all anybody normally hears about is the 0.1 figure. It is misleading.
Don't hold me on the exact numbers, the point is that this 0.1 irradiance figure gives an incomplete picture of the total increase in electromagnetic wave irradiance increase from minimum to maximum.
Also, it ignores all the electrical current energy, by way of electrons and ions, imparted during maximum, which is a significant amount of energy.
It's a question of whether you are going to believe some scientists or your lying eyes.
Sun at minimum -- Sun at maximum -- is there a significant difference in output of energy -- you make the call.
by junglelord » Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:55 am
Good point and good observation. I know that in general terms, but I am glad you pointed that out. Cheers
Fractal Weather
by junglelord » Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:25 am
WE'VE all watched those vast heaps of cotton wool float across the sky. Lofted and shaped by updrafts of warm air, cumulus clouds mesmerise with their constantly changing shape. Some grow ever taller, while others wither and die before our eyes. All bear witness to the ceaseless roiling of the ocean of air we call the atmosphere.
About 80 years ago, the British mathematician Lewis Fry Richardson was pondering the shapes of such clouds when a startling thought occurred to him: the laws that govern the atmosphere might actually be very simple.
Even at the time, with scientific meteorology still in its infancy, the idea seemed absurd: key equations governing the behaviour of the 5 million billion tonnes of air above us had already been identified - and they were anything but simple.
No one was more aware of this than Richardson, who is recognised as one of the founders of modern weather forecasting. Even now, the world's most powerful computers are pushed to their limits extracting predictions of future weather and climate from the equations he wrestled with using pencil and paper.
Yet Richardson suspected that behind the mathematical complexity of the atmosphere lay a far simpler reality - if only we looked at it the right way.
Now an international team of researchers analysing signals from satellites, aircraft and ground-based stations have found clear evidence that Richardson's intuition was right and that the complexity of the atmosphere could really be an illusion.
The results point to a new view of the atmosphere as a vast collection of cascade-like processes, with large structures the size of continents breaking down to feed ever-smaller ones, right down to zephyrs of air no bigger than a fly.
The implications promise to transform the way we predict everything from tomorrow's local weather to the changing climate of the entire planet. "We may never be able to view the atmosphere and climate in the same way again," says team member Shaun Lovejoy of McGill University in Montreal, Canada. "Rather than seeing them as so complex that only equally complex numerical models can make sense of them, we're seeing a kind of scale-by-scale simplicity."
Richardson had a reputation for having ideas decades ahead of his time. He pioneered the study of fractal geometry - the study of patterns that look the same no matter how much you magnify them - though the word "fractal" had yet to be coined. Look at the honeycomb pattern in a beehive, say, and the hexagonal structure is only visible if you're not too close or too far away. But look at some kinds of plants and you'll see their fronds are made up of ever-smaller versions of the overall leaf. This is known as scale invariance, and is a feature of fractals. Richardson noticed that coastlines have a similar property, their jagged outlines appearing just as jagged as one zooms in to ever-smaller scales.
Attempting to capture this mathematically, Richardson found the same behaviour in simple formulas called power laws, by which one quantity changes according to another raised to some power. Even something as simple as tiling your bathroom wall follows a power law: reduce the length of each square tile by 1/l and you'll need l2 as many tiles. Such laws also reproduce the scale invariance of objects like ferns and coastlines, which retain the same basic form no matter how big the change in scale.
It was while looking for other examples of self-similarity that Richardson came to ponder the skies above: he noticed how the shape of clouds is constantly modified by the invisible whirls and eddies of turbulent air that surround them.
To get some insight into the laws governing turbulent fluids, Richardson performed simple experiments in which he threw bits of parsnip into a lake and watched how they moved apart under the action of the whirls and eddies on the surface. As with coastlines, Richardson found that a scale-invariant power law seemed to apply - an observation that inspired him to poetry: "Big whirls have little whirls that feed on their velocity, and little whirls have lesser whirls, and so on to viscosity" - a parody of Jonathan Swift's famous 18th-century doggerel about fleas and the little fleas that bite 'em.
But behind the humour lay Richardson's growing conviction that the atmosphere is just a collection of cascade-like processes, with large structures breaking down to feed ever-smaller ones, creating a fractal-like structure which acted according to power laws.
As with his work on weather forecasting, Richardson could only dream of a time when his ideas could be properly investigated. That time seemed to come in the 1980s, when fractals and scale invariance hit the scientific big time. Simple scaling laws were suddenly claimed to underpin everything from the size and frequency of earthquakes and avalanches to the rise and fall of stock markets. So why didn't anyone put Richardson's idea to the test and search for simple power laws describing the entire atmosphere?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ctals.html
Changes in Earth-Sun relationship?
by GaryN » Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:12 pm
Last night on the CBC Canada late news, they were saying how the Climate Change proponents were using a video of how the changes in the Arctic were affecting the Inuit. Melting permafrost, reduction of the ice extent, etc. Not mentioned in the climate change video, was what some of the elders were saying to the CBC reporter, about perceived changes in the Suns behaviour, that it was rising faster and rising higher in the winter, that the constant night of mid winter wasn't as dark as it used to be. The stars were not in their same positions, and, they noted that some of the seals they caught exhibited 'sunburn' on their backs, presumably from increased UV. Didn't find much with a quick net search, but there is one forum discussion about the possibility (from 2007):
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=3740
A change in the Earths angle of rotation would be allowed by Miles Mathis if the interplanetary charges were changing, so where do I find out from the 'experts' if there is any measurable change in the Sun-Earth-other planets relationship?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
GaryN
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada
Galaxies and Cyclones
by Spuds » Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:51 pm
It is impossible to look at a picture of a cyclone from space and not see similarities to galaxies. Actually, they look identical, but on different scales. I am familiar with Halton Arp's observations that some galaxies appear to be "spinning off" QSO's (smaller galaxies) and I asked the question: "Do Cyclones spin off smaller cyclones?" I was delighted by the answer. Yes, cyclones often give rise to numerous tornados. Is anybody investigating these parallels?
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
- Galileo Galilei
by Komorikid » Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:54 am
After reading Part 2 of the latest TPOD - The Interconnected Sun the work of Piers Corbin comes to mind.
I also follow the Climate Change blogs and regularly contribute to sites like
What's Up With That
Climate Change Fraud and
Climate Realists
Corbin is an astrophysicist who has developed what he calls the Solar Weather Techniques from which he predicts future weather events especially High Impact Event like cyclones/hurricanes, flooding, extreme cold and hot spells and other events. I don't know if Piers is a EU believer but his technique is based, from what I can see, on sound EU principles.
He and his colleagues study the electric nature of the Solar ions that interconnect with the Earth's ionosphere and how they changes the upper atmosphere which is linked to lower atmospheric changes that drive out climate. His success rate in prediction long (year ahead) and short (month ahead) events worldwide is quite astonishing. His success rate is 85%. In fact he has been so successful over the last decade that he was prepared to put his money where his science was. He bet against the British Met with UK bookmakers up until two years ago when they banned him from placing any more wagers because of his success rate and their insistence on using the Met as their "standard".
His website Weather Action provides High Impact Event predictions free and individual tailored predictions for a fee, which is his main source of research income. Its amazing how a few hard working science realists with a half dozen PCs and a laptop working in a cramped office in South London can predict weather/climate with an accuracy that is an order of magnitude greater than all the climatologist with their multi-million dollar super computers.
When you use the wrong model to analyse the wrong data it's all bound to go array bigtime.
Fiction can't be proven. Fact can't be denied - Paul M
Komorikid
Re: Electric Weather
by mharratsc » Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:58 pm
You would think... that a success rate like that would make meteorological institutes sit up and take notice...
by junglelord » Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:04 pm
Great post...
mharratsc wrote: You would think... that a success rate like that would make meteorological institutes sit up and take notice...
Yes and no...do we really teach and learn the truth?
All that money in weather "forcasting" that is very poor in its percentage of correct predictions.
Yet they get the money and for some reason control the system with their inability to get it right.
Its just like professor Lewin of MIT saying the earth is only charged 10 coulombs.
What stuff they teach, is lapped up, and sucked up with dollar signs, yet the truth, those who speak without a forked tongue, well, we become marginalized, its part of the programming that goes on at a very deep level of the human psyche. When Professor Lewin says that dispite common sense, the earth is neutral and only carries a charge of 10 coulombs AT BEST....and I get kicked off a electronic forum for saying the universe is electric...you read between the lines.
People are almost "scared" of the truth...they become frightened and gather together and outcast those who speak the truth...chanting the tribal mantra they have been spellbound to recite...the layers are deep and the blinders are for a purpose. I will let it go at that. Long live the EU and anyone that "GETS IT".
I predict, dispite how correct this model is, it will not be accepted, because its too close to the truth.
220 posts • Page 4 of 15 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15