Talkin Tropics Show

[MWatkins]

Yep, you guessed it, it's that time of week where I tell you what's coming up on the program. So, here it goes.

Please join us Thursday night at 8PM Eastern for TalkinTropics. We will discuss why this month looks to be a quiet one, look at the long wave pattern forecast into next month, and we will be joined by Mike Doran. You may remember him from the season opening show where we discussed unconventional methods of hurricane forecasting, including electrical fields and their potential influence on hurricanes and hurricane forecasting.

Oh yeah we will also discuss this idea of hurricane betting.

Plus it's open phones for the 2nd hour which means we will take any questions or comments you may have about just about anything. This may be the last time we do this for a while so get in while you can.

We'll go until whenever we are done...See ya there!

MW

[Jim Cantore]

Oh yeah we will also discuss this idea of hurricane betting.

this oughta be intresting

I'll be listenin

[Jim Cantore]

hey Mike, 2 hour show?

[Mike Doran]

http://www.tropicalupdate.com/audio/tt_2006_05_18.mp3

I was on the Talking Tropics show from 10 minutes to 40 minutes.

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

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Thsi above link is to the op ed article in the WSJ was written by MIT's Prof. R. S. Lindzen. Lindzen et al AMS articles: "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?" is available online. Lindzen's paper on iris is available at http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?re ... &page=0417 for the abstract, and the link "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article. The �iris� is remarkable not because of the extrapolation math, disproved below, but because of the different states of the ocean between La Nina and El Nino have significant electrical meaning.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/paper010723.pdf http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/IRIS_BAMS.pdf http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis ... 59_rev.pdf http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis ... Append.pdf http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis ... evised.pdf

I would mention that these opposing scientists, who have great CVs but no EMF or biology kens, fail to look at the biosphere or EMFs for reasons why they are seeing what they are seeing. Therefore, like the CO2 as GHG warmers and skeptics (who usually point to clouds), they fight each other's straw men.

In order to understand why hurricanes behave differently with CO2, you have to have the ken of electro magnetism. He does not. Again, appreciate that for each degF increase in SSTs there is a corresponding decrease in electrical resistance of one percent. BUT, the subject of 'iris' was the selected period of La Nina in the selected place of the tropical WEST Pacific. And in that place the lightning strikes that might power cloud behaviors come from different distances and intensities from the terresphere than the tropical EAST Pacific.

AGAIN, until there is an HONEST addressing of the CONDUCTIVITY meaning of CO2 there will never be anything but fraud perpetrated by so called skeptics like Lindzen.

ENSO--key to this discussion of what forcing CO2 has on clouds. Regarding, for instance, Walker circulations:

http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/level ... o.htm#four

In a nutshell, when colder tropical waters are by the Americas (La Nina), because for each degF drop in SSTs there is a one percent increase in resistance, strikes from nearby Americas cannot power capacitive couplings as well to organize cloud microphysics, and the essential couplings come from strikes in the tropical West Pacific. During El Nino, the strikes power the coupling better toward the Americas, and some of the water coming over land creates even more thunderstorms and hence local displacement currents.

Higher CO2 predictably leads to more outgassing of CO2 and has caused the Walker circulations more to the El Nino side. It's not complicated when you look at it from an electrical standpoint,

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


From the China paper [my comments]:


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 [fair weather voltages are about 10 to the -1 k volts per meter]. However, the strength of the electric field used in our experiments was only 1/400 of the 10 to the 5th kV/m [fair weather voltages would be on order of 1/1,000,000 of these voltages, whereas w/ tropical storm transiants above the eye, the transiant ratios would be similar to the experiments]. Thus, the morphological change of the ice in this study was not caused by the ice lattice change. Without the electric field, the crystal growth process could be considered as a process whereby the water molecules are added one by one to the crystal lattice. This 'adding' process has normally the same probability in all directions, and leads to the formation of the symmetric ice crystal [figure omitted]. However, when a high voltage field is applied, the electric field may cause different molecules in the DMSO solution [a weak acid--what should be noted is rain water is slightly acidic from the CO2 and other particles that get dissolved in the air--with a like pH of about 5.6] to exhibit different behaviors. The polar water molecules/clusters may be torqued and rearranged under the action of the electric field and forced to joining the lattice in a special orientation and position. Hence, different growth rates occur in different directions and the ice crystal becomes asymmetric. Under the action of an electric field, the water molecules may rearrange and line up end to end in the direction of the electric field. In viewing the crystal structure, this well-ordered water molecules/clusters seems like crystal or quasi-crystallines. In this case the water molecules/clusters possess an ideal situation for rapid crystal growth. That may be the reason why the main branches, which are parallel to the direction of the electric field, grow faster than the other branches."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Aquawind]

hey Mike, 2 hour show?

Plus it's open phones for the 2nd hour which means we will take any questions or comments you may have about just about anything.

He can't stop in a hour.. heck I will take bets on if MW can stop on time..

[SouthFloridawx]

hey Mike, 2 hour show?

Plus it's open phones for the 2nd hour which means we will take any questions or comments you may have about just about anything.

He can't stop in a hour.. heck I will take bets on if MW can stop on time..

Yeah I'll pitch in on that one.

[Aquawind]

RE:Mike Doran

I have an open mind about the stuff your talking about although the terminology gets over my head before I can put it all together. I was hoping you could answer a couple questions either here or on the show tonight.

Could you just list the exact tools/data that you use realtime or not for forecasting?

If there was a realtime surface observation instrument(s) that could be included with the standard realtime weather observation station what would it be?

If you could try and keep it in simple or at least few terms I would appreciate it.

Thanks

[chadtm80]

Dont miss it! You will never find anything like the Talkin Tropics Show

[skysummit]

I'll be there! The best seat is in the virtual studio where you can ask questions via text and chat with us!

[x-y-no]

In order to understand why hurricanes behave differently with CO2, you have to have the ken of electro magnetism.

I don't know about Ken, but I once turned one of my sister's dolls into Electroshock Barbie. She was not amused.

[Mike Doran]

RE:Mike Doran

I have an open mind about the stuff your talking about although the terminology gets over my head before I can put it all together. I was hoping you could answer a couple questions either here or on the show tonight.

Could you just list the exact tools/data that you use realtime or not for forecasting?

If there was a realtime surface observation instrument(s) that could be included with the standard realtime weather observation station what would it be?

If you could try and keep it in simple or at least few terms I would appreciate it.

Thanks

I have a bum right knee--moderate arthritis. I had an MRI of it last year and right after it was done the tech showed me my knee. Want to take a look, he asked. So I did. Noodles to me. Later at the orthopedic's office he put up an image and looks at it for the first time for about 10 seconds and quickly points out my arthritis.

Of course I look at sites like http://www.lightningstorm.com . For instance when Monica came toward Oz and went from 145 knots to 155 knots this corresponded to a band landfalling Oz. Well from all the observations that I have had I know that when the band comes over land there are going to be lightning strikes and therefore a closer source of displacement current to power the storm--which is why it intensified, to a novice, out of the blue. But I didn't have any lightning data to show someone the loop of Monica and say--see--there, when the band came over land from the storm there are the lightning strikes close to the storm and bam it intesified. But with storms close to the CONUS you have it.

And with Dennis, Katrina and Rita last year you have the low flow of the Mississippi and there are web pages which indicate Mississippi flow. That impacts, then, by higher salinities, CONDUCTIVITY of the GOM. Then you had the bloom in the GOM, where there is another great site for information on anomaly microbial activity:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Natura ... pic=unique

Two years ago there was beautiful bloom off the coast of California and that site had a awesome image of it, with great detail, and you could actually see when a March storm rolled in how on radar the individual bands were impacted by the bloom--the couplings that occurred as a result of the greater conductivity of it. It rained very hard here in Redding, so some of it is like that. But those microbial blooms are great clues . . .

IR shots are helpful, too. Because remember that water has a dielectric constant of about 80 but COLD water, near freezing water--the dielectric runs higher to 88. When you have cold cloud tops this settles the ionosphere and it becomes more conductive, IMHO. So IR images are helpful.

SSTs matter, but you have to appreciate the mechanism. For each degF increase in SSTs the ocean becomes more conductive by one percent. That incease in conductivity can send your displacement current away! For instance three of the last four days we had 60k strike events in the CONUS but it all ran to the W.Pac to power that storm there. Why didn't that electrical energy stay in the EPAC?

That gets to carbonation. With a surface low CO2 first comes out of solution then rises, lighter than the ocean, to the top. There it runs back to ion form and increases surface conductivities. If the low corresponds to outgassing like that and to conductivity in a point, not a line (which matches the ITCZ and thermal gradiants of incoming solar heat), then there is a better chance that a low breaks from the ITCZ and comes to the temperate zone as a tropical storm.

Carbonation gets to life. And modulation by life, so information about ecologies is helpful. For instance, information about where methane hydrate fields are (hydrates are biogenic). Coral reef information--where they are. That sort of thing.

There are other odd sources of information which gets to conductivity. One one thing is direction of an ocean current--because that gets to induction which gets to impedance. The direction of an ion wind called the QBO is another electrical measure. Space weather, for the same reason. Gravity changes, such as the moon's orbital behaviors, is also a significant measure. But it's not because of the tidal influence on the air, IMHO, that it is significant. It's the tidal action on the ocean, that AGAIN imacts conductivities from outgassings.

I look at the SOI index, because it's also an indication of outgassing, either tending east or west in the Pacific. That is then an indication of conductivity. Interestingly, with ENSO there is known increases in overall decarbonation of the oceans during El Nino, just like the Bates et al research shows decarbonation specififically with a tropical storm. And that has a global imprint. It's a CONDUCTIVITY imprint.

[bigmoney755]

I'll be there! The best seat is in the virtual studio where you can ask questions via text and chat with us!

how do you ask questions and chat?

[skysummit]

I'll be there! The best seat is in the virtual studio where you can ask questions via text and chat with us!

how do you ask questions and chat?

You need to be in the virtual studio. It requires Teamspeak.

[x-y-no]

I'm sorry. I see a lot of hand-waving but I don't see any explanation of the physical mechanism by which electrical fields or currents are supposed to affect storms, nor any quantification of the hypothesized effect.

[Mike Doran]

In order to understand why hurricanes behave differently with CO2, you have to have the ken of electro magnetism.

I don't know about Ken, but I once turned one of my sister's dolls into Electroshock Barbie. She was not amused.

Here is something I am very intersted in talking about--first life.

There are resonances in the atmosphere called Schumann resonances. It turns out these same resonances are found in our BRAINS. How did they get there?

We move through MRI machines, even get shocks from prank Barbies, but our brains function. How could our brains have the same tuning of a resonance so minute in the atmosphere if a MRI of our brains can be taken?

See, my view is that DNA was sorted in cloud parasols in DC fields by size, shape, mass, and charge--long before there were even cells, and that led to complexity of life as it began to calculate a solution to modulate a living earth.

Let's get basic about this, real simple.

Tell me at what point you . . . think I am full of it:

1. Life is made of lifeless chemicals.

2. Life requires nucleotides (DNA, RNA)

3. Life must have metabolism.

4. Life must be able to repair itself (anabolism, catabolism).

5. In order for life to form from lifeless chemicals nucleotides had to form a symbiotic relationship with a metabolism process.


========

I don't wholly agree with this, but it has been said that life is closed to efficient cause.

So if a tropical storm has carbonation as an essential chemistry to it's organization, and you have nucleotide material that is damaged in fair weather from UV light but at the same time in the oceans is nearby formedehydes which when combined with that UV light naturally form SUGARS. Then once the sugars are under cloudy regions, the UV light is no longer there and the sugars run back exothermic chemical gradiants BACK to CO2--where they are available to bubble up to the surface, and lifting on the surface tension of the bubble, the nucleotide material, where on the surface are lifted into cloud droplets. There, the nucleotides move by size, shape, charge or mass to CALCULATE a feedback of cloud behaviors. So you have in the nucleotides both memory and feedback.

xyno, I don't know you real well. But I do have an idea of who you are. It's not you. Because the only you, the only reality of you is YOU. But I can make a 'model' of you. Likewise, once the nucleotides acting as a solution set became a 'model' of climate, and began to feedback conditions that led to their survival, it began to 'repair' itself. Such was the start of LIFE. All life.

This gets to the idea that life is closed to efficient cause. When you talk about life, like a microbial bloom, influencing a tropical storm, that is what I am trying to get at--despite nature life brings about an outcome. That's modulation, that's dampening of the condition. That's very much like when I am hot I sweat, cold I shiver. It's not a chaotic oscillater, it's a modulated or dampened one.

[Mike Doran]

I'm sorry. I see a lot of hand-waving but I don't see any explanation of the physical mechanism by which electrical fields or currents are supposed to affect storms, nor any quantification of the hypothesized effect.

I see a lot of anger and a lack of skepticism, if you really want to go there with non-sense like 'hand-waving'. If you want to talk about virtual capaciters

IONOSPHERE

....................-..............-
.....................\............/
......................\........../
.......................v .......v
........................^......^
.........................\..../
..........................\../
..........................+.+
....- -----><----- + - + -----><----- -
............................+
............................|
............................|
............................v
............................^
............................|
............................|
............................-

ATLANTIC SURFACE

....................+..............+
.....................\............/
......................\........../
.......................v .......v
........................^......^
.........................\..../
..........................\../
..........................-.-
...+ -----><----- - + - -----><----- +
............................-
............................|
............................|
............................v
............................^
............................|
............................|
............................+

Ionosphere Ocean Capacitive Coupling above Eye:

............................+..-..+
............................|..|..|
............................|..|..|
............................v..v..v
............................^..^..^
............................|..|..|
............................|..|..|
............................-..+..-

and the math of capactive charging and discharging--if you have a specific question, lay it on me.

[HurriCat]

(after reading much of this thread...) (keels over).

[Mike Doran]

Hurri--the ironic thing about your comment is that complexity is NOT complication.

The problem with the baratropical or pressure only approach is that an outcome with this narrow approach CANNOT be calculated. You think what I am talking about is complicated, BUT try to use the baratropical approach to solve for weather 20 days out. Talk about complicated! Talk about probably being DEAD WRONG!

But the introduction of electrics provides a different set of parameters. I could get into viscosity and turbulance, but suffice to say that there are limits to present meteorology and YET we have climate and YET we have LIFE which has survived for 4 billion years--not 10 days like the limits of our baratropical computer models. What about LIFE--how did it figure out climate when we still are confounded by it?


How come the oceans are more saline today? How come, as Carl Sagan pondered, did the earth remain unfrozen 4 billion years ago when the sun was 25 percent less lumenous? How come it isn't a gas ball today? Is the earth closed to efficient cause?

[x-y-no]

There are resonances in the atmosphere called Schumann resonances. It turns out these same resonances are found in our BRAINS. How did they get there?

I'm well aware of Schumann resonance. But what's the basis for cliaming"the same resonances are found in our brains?" Before I trouble to try and explain such a phenomenon, I need to see some concrete evidence that it's real.

...

Let's get basic about this, real simple.

Tell me at what point you . . . think I am full of it:

1. Life is made of lifeless chemicals.

2. Life requires nucleotides (DNA, RNA)

3. Life must have metabolism.

4. Life must be able to repair itself (anabolism, catabolism).

5. In order for life to form from lifeless chemicals nucleotides had to form a symbiotic relationship with a metabolism process.

Uh ... that would be #5. I don't even know what "a symbiotic relationship with a metabolism process" means.

========

I don't wholly agree with this, but it has been said that life is closed to efficient cause.

I'm afraid I have no idea what this is supposed to mean either.

So if a tropical storm has carbonation as an essential chemistry to it's organization, and you have nucleotide material that is damaged in fair weather from UV light but at the same time in the oceans is nearby formedehydes which when combined with that UV light naturally form SUGARS. Then once the sugars are under cloudy regions, the UV light is no longer there and the sugars run back exothermic chemical gradiants BACK to CO2--where they are available to bubble up to the surface, and lifting on the surface tension of the bubble, the nucleotide material, where on the surface are lifted into cloud droplets. There, the nucleotides move by size, shape, charge or mass to CALCULATE a feedback of cloud behaviors. So you have in the nucleotides both memory and feedback.

Again, I'm sorry, but where's the real-world evidence for this alleged biochemical process and its connection to weather? This just looks like more hand-waving to me.

I really don't mean to be offensive, but if you actually have some coherent idea and want people to pay attention to it, I think you need to do a lot better at presenting it clearly. As it stands, I genuinely can't tell if there's any germ of an idea there or not. Now maybe that's my fault, but I really don't think so.

xyno, I don't know you real well. But I do have an idea of who you are. It's not you. Because the only you, the only reality of you is YOU. But I can make a 'model' of you. Likewise, once the nucleotides acting as a solution set became a 'model' of climate, and began to feedback conditions that led to their survival, it began to 'repair' itself. Such was the start of LIFE. All life.

This gets to the idea that life is closed to efficient cause. When you talk about life, like a microbial bloom, influencing a tropical storm, that is what I am trying to get at--despite nature life brings about an outcome. That's modulation, that's dampening of the condition. That's very much like when I am hot I sweat, cold I shiver. It's not a chaotic oscillater, it's a modulated or dampened one.

This sounds like some variant of the Gaia hypothesis, maybe?

In the long term, it's clear that life has played a huge role in shaping the nature of Earth's surface and atmosphere and may even play an active moderating role to prevent any sort of runaway instability.

But short term influences on weather, either through some biochemical process or mediated through conductivity and electrical fields or whatever is another matter. I don't see the real-world physical basis for the claim and I can't glean any sufficiently clear understanding of what you think is happening to even begin to suggest some means of testing the hypothesis.

Frankly, my intuitive reaction is that there's nothing there. I could, of course, be wrong about that. But absent a more coherent presentation of some hypothesis regarding the physical processes which are to produce the effects you claim, I'm afraid mine will also be the reaction of most scientists and scientifically literate laymen.

[x-y-no]

... (snipped to save space)

Ionosphere Ocean Capacitive Coupling above Eye:

............................+..-..+
............................|..|..|
............................|..|..|
............................v..v..v
............................^..^..^
............................|..|..|
............................|..|..|
............................-..+..-

and the math of capactive charging and discharging--if you have a specific question, lay it on me.

OK, so if I'm understanding you right, you're saying that a capacitive charge between the ocean surface and the ionosphere over a storm somehow influences the storm's dynamics.

So what's the total size of that capacitive charge, and what's the magnitude of the force imparted by that charge relative to the magnitude of forces imparted by the commonly understood elements of cyclogenesis and storm dynamics - surface heat, latent heat of evaporation, etc?

Specifically how does the existence of this capacitive charge influence any aspect of the storm's dynamics?