Is an Intelligent Designer Necessary?

Marine scientists discover nutrient pollution boosts fungi, bacteria
killing Caribbean reefsNovember 26, 2003CHAPEL HILL -- In the Caribbean Sea, coral reefs -- those gorgeous,
eye-popping, fish-nourishing, ship-scraping biological wonders that
are among the region's crown jewels -- continue to die rapidly, a
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill biologist says. Their
future looks bleak."The good news is that we might be able to do something about
lowering the growing nutrient levels through regulations or other
methods," Bruno said. "It's close to impossible to do anything about
rising temperatures and other effects of what humans are doing to
the environment."University of North Carolina at Chapel HillComments:What needs to be appreciated is there is a symbiotic relationship
between fungus, bacteria and reefs in that the reefs have a certain
conductivity meaning, attracting biological containment, and hence
electrical containment, to a specified, fixed place. Algae and fungi
populations, again, are triggered by TEMPERATURE changes, and, again,
impact cirrus above, and cloud nucleation. Stress brings on the
reaction, and it is the ocean life literally saying, my chemistry and
temperature isn't good, lets change and feedback something different.

It is a distributed process--massively parallel. It behaves as if it were alive, and for all practical purposes, acts as if it alive.The living earth thread gets into the details here. The key is how cirrus clouds behave. If you have a specific question after reviewing some of what is written I would be happy to respond there. Otherwise, admin will pull my plug. But your specific question is a Gaia question.

> Marine Scientists Discover Nutrient Pollution Boosts Fungi, Bacteria
> Killing Caribbean Reefs
> CHAPEL HILL -- In the Caribbean Sea, coral reefs -- those gorgeous,
> eye-popping, fish-nourishing, ship-scraping biological wonders that
> are among the region's crown jewels -- continue to die rapidly, a
> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill biologist says. Their
> future looks bleak.
>
> Dr. John Bruno, assistant professor of marine sciences at UNC, and
> colleagues at other U.S. universities, believe they have identified
> one reason why. Results of field experiments they conducted off
> Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula suggested that chemical nutrients washed
> and dumped into the sea can increase the severity of coral diseases.
>
> A report on the findings appears in the December issue of the
> journal Ecology Letters, which is expected to be posted online Nov.
> 26. Besides Bruno, authors are Drs. Laura E. Petes of Oregon State
> University, C. Drew Harvell of Cornell University and Annaliese
> Hettinger of California State University in Northridge.
>
> "Caribbean coral reefs have declined dramatically over the past 20
> years or so as disease epidemics have swept through them," Bruno
> said. "In less than a year, the two most common species that covered
> 60 to 70 percent of the bottom were just wiped out, becoming
> functionally extinct and changing possibly forever the structure of
> those marine communities. It was analogous to losing all the pine
> trees in the Carolinas down into Georgia."
>
> Since no one had gone into the field to test the nutrient hypothesis
> about what was happening, the UNC scientist and his colleagues did
> just that. They looked specifically at the fungi Aspergillus, which
> kills elegant gorgonian sea fans through a disease known as
> aspergillosis and two species of the reef-building corals
> Montastraea, which yellow band disease can kill.
>
> The researchers placed various concentrations of time-release
> fertilizer rich in nitrogen and phosphorus in porous bags made from
> pantyhose and suspended them at sites on reefs some four to six
> inches from living colonies of the tiny animals. That enabled them
> to manipulate and boost nutrient levels in the water.
>
> "We found that even modest rises in nutrient pollution could
> increase mortality of the three important Caribbean corals by
> facilitating the spread of disease," Bruno said. "Our results
> suggest that further steps should be taken to reduce nutrient
> pollution from agricultural runoff, sewage pollution and
> deforestation."
>
> By increasing nutrient concentrations between two- and five-fold,
> the marine biologists recorded almost a doubling of tissue loss
> among the Monastraea from yellow band disease, he said. A separate
> experiment showed nutrient enrichment significantly increased two
> measures of the severity of sea fan aspergillosis.
>
> "What we did was relatively minor enrichment so we were not doing it
> to the extent you might find in the Chesapeake Bay or the coastal
> Carolinas near a pig farm or something," Bruno said. "We did what we
> thought would be comparable to what is happening in the Caribbean."
>
> Sea fans are the colorful, fragile-looking, plant-like animals that
> divers and snorkelers see waving gracefully back and forth in 10 to
> 20 feet of water, he said. The aspergillosis that kills them is
> common in plants, birds and humans with weakened immune defenses
> such as patients with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
>
> What causes yellow band disease of the reef-building corals is
> unproven, but Dr. Garret W. Smith of the University of South
> Carolina believes that it is a bacterial infection that spreads over
> the surface of coral colonies like a yellow doughnut, Bruno said.
> Sometimes it kills the entire colony, and other times it stops and
> disappears.
>
> Reefs rarely if ever recover and in death often become covered with
> algae and other microorganisms. "We don't think nutrients played the
> primary role in causing this Caribbean-wide shift from coral to
> algae-dominated communities, but we do think their role could be
> important," the UNC scientist said. "There are much more insidious
> things going on that likely are more important such as rising global
> temperatures and over-fishing.
>
> "The good news is that we might be able to do something about
> lowering the growing nutrient levels through regulations or other
> methods," Bruno said. "It's close to impossible to do anything about
> rising temperatures and other effects of what humans are doing to
> the environment."
>
>Comment:What is occurring here is actually a living earth feedback. What on one level may appear to be a preditor prey relationship between algae dominated communities, viruses, fungi and so forth, and the corals, is actually perfectly symbiotic and balanced. The release into the atmosphere of particles of virus, algae, fungis--basically small creatures that become nucleotide based parasols, allows cirrus formations that can be stratified between the ionosphere and convective cloud masses and feedback more heat trapping and convection. Since the feedbacks are also enhanced by cumullations of live below, as life together has a electrical pattern or signature compared to lifeless, diffused chemistries, what then washes down the rivers, where there is life, is chemistries that support life.Human activity messes with 4 billion or more years of evolved modulations of chaotic climate input and chemistry conditions. Fossil fuels role is not as a GHG but largely as a marine surface electrical baseline, where gas exchanges from ambiant winds impact surface conductivies. I urge anyone interested in the SCIENCE of this to re read Harris et als Nature paper on the 1970 La Nina compared to the 1997 El Nino and focus on the cirrus cloud behavior analysis of the paper, in light of John Christy's view that clouds form a GHG about 100 times more powerful than CO2. The bad assumption being that CO2 as a heat trapping forming directly influeces cirrus cloud formation, when the forcing on the clouds is ELECTRICAL (large scale, low frequancy) and having to do with cirrus cloud patterns as modulated by the chemestry and biosphere of the oceans.Gaia is a fundimentally ELECTO MECHANICAL forcing which depends on cirrus clouds and their ability to trap heat. Cirrus can trap heat or let it escape out into space that results in a couple of hundred watts per meter difference in energies that would reach a convective cloud below--and cirrus reside between ionosphere and cloud top where charge separations occur. Fair weather is about 250 volts per meter to ground, whereas in convective regions strong negative gradiants move to ground. The patterns form the global electrical circuit, and maintain a relatively positive charge cummulation in the ionsphere by the separation of charges from convection, and that process is ultimately powered by radiation from the sun. It is this pattern that the biosphere evolved to modulate, first by nucleotides sorted in the cirrus, by charge, shape and mass, and then with more complex pre cellular self relicating nucleotide based chemical areas, and then finally with cells.++++++++++++++++++++Taste buds are single cells that are able to sense 5 different chemical realities. This appears to be a basic very old evolutionary Gaia reaction. My view is that early climate feedbacks in the marine layer would have reacted to sulfur from volcanic activity washed or rained into the oceans, high sugar levels from healthy conditions, salinity levels, pH levels, and protein levels. These form the basic tastes, and it is no surprise more complex creatures would contain taste buds with a like chemical set of sensitivies.As it turns out, these kinds of basic chemistries directly, and indirectly through levels of cellular activity, would have huge impacts on the conductivities of a large scale area based on cummulations of cells in that area. This then becomes the foundation of gaia modulations of climate.Hold out your hands. Now look at the cracks between your fingers. Those cracks develop in the fetus by a process called programmed cell death. It's not really death, but more that the cell gets a message to stop growing and dividing, whereas the cells that are the fingers get a different message.Basic taste comes from the same cell--with five different sets of chemicals they sense and send messages about. What I am saying about the biosphere is that varying conditions in the environment caused the cells to give different chemical messages off, and varied the way that they would grow and divide, or do things like that. Early life communicated with each other, by chemicals, DNA and so forth. Sweetness, for instance, would probably be a message to grow and divide. I have and advantage in that I know the answer, it is just the question I seek pertaining to early life.Bear in mind, for instance, that a volcanic eruption with large amounts of SOx emissions would phase change depress cirrus, and yet the SOx washes out of the air after a few years. A body of water could evaporate and become saline. All of these changes to the chemistry of a microbes surroundings--that they could "taste", would mean different things respecting the basic climate and environment inputs felt by these microbes. By feeding back cummulations of their activity on the ecology, they would vary conductivities and hence large scale electrical patterns--and therefore modulate climate, modulate their surrounding chemistry and temperature toward living conditions.How is this important? I am on other bbs where we are discussing widescale death of the coral reefs within the next decade. We are already in the midst of an extinction event, and the key forcing involved here is CO2 impacting the CONDUTIVITY of the oceans, via gas exchange. The corals are one of the largest sinks of CO2, converting CO2 gas to calcium carbinate.

Actually, fire on earth may be part of living processes.What it means is there is too much O2 and too little water to support the existing biosphere in a region. Sometimes fire is a chaotic input, but I would say generally it is a modulated aspect. Fire brings about soot particles that tend to disburse diffusely--and then become attracted to better living conditions, electrically, because fair weather areas tend to be fair weather positive voltages to ground, and the particles assume that charge, to be drawn, then, to convective regions, which are places of very negative voltages to ground. Part of the issue then has to do with water and air's comparitive dielectrical constant, because what is occurring here is a capactive coupling between ionosphere and ocean.The short answer is, however, that there is no chemical process on earth that isn't modulated by the living earth, to include burnings.

Self awareness is probably limited to humans . . . and arguably a few primates. But the foundations of our ability to displace time and events and have awareness first requires consciousness. I submit that you must go back to a distributed model to get to how our brains work, and that there are those like Joejohn McFadden who thinks that the connections to the subsystems is electromagnetic in nature. And because of Gaia's early cirrus cloud nucleotide sorting, it follows that the basic structure of our ability to be aware comes from the same types of distributed nucleotide problem solving that occurred with early gaia. The complexity simply was fit in a smaller container, but our intelligence is the result of four billion years of evolution, which includes countless transactions of indivicual cells and creatures attempting essentially to solve a climate and chemistry problem and survive as a whole.

Well, let me say that with the cirrus clouds, the nucleotide based PRE cellular modulation caused the significant chemistry to contain carbon and water--which helps define life on an cellular level. BUT life IMHO is defined more by feedbacks and survival of the entity. In this case, Gaia occurred before there were cells and it used all chemistries to survive.Two points, for you. First, if you want to debate this with me and ask for peer review, please look at the Living Earth Thread, particularly under the article quoted by Harris et al in Nature on cirrus and CO2. Again, it is like an electropherisis strip and banding--that feeds back IR heat in patterns and then rains the banded nucleotides by size, shape, wieght and mass.I bring that up because I am about to write, by email, Sallie Chisholm, a MIT biologist:Faculty - MIT Department of Biology"We participated in three expeditions that tested this hypothesis, in which a patch of ocean was fertilized with iron, and the response of the phytoplankton community was monitored. The results were dramatic. Phytoplankton biomass increased 20-fold with the addition of iron, and the structure of the phytoplankton community also changed substantially. Our role in the project was to describe and understand the differential response of phytoplankton species to iron enrichment."There is an interesting aspect of iron, no? It's conductive!BTW, you are reading some of these ideas, cutting edge, for perhaps the first time from my mind to yours. How big is this? Isaac Asomov has a book on "history" going back to the Big Bang. As of 1992 when this book was published, on the subject of pre cellular life--he had no answer. I am answering it before your eyes, and you are corresponding with someone who will be remembered hundreds of years, perhaps, after my death, becuase of it. Kindof cool, eh?

It would appear you project a little.Don't let your ego get in the way of learning something. I am not making the comment for the reasons you think, just making an honest observation.I KNOW what I have discovered here is substantial, but at this point I am trying to find publication. My brother is a bio-chemist, and my father, a meteorologist. It is difficult to find peers, because this requires a little of both understanding very complex chaotic and at the same time biological dynamics.BTW, do you know what a dielectric is? I bring it up because there are new dams on the Orinoco and a freak December tropical storm . . . and the tropical storms are largely about a capacitive coupling between ionosphere and ocean. The dielectric of water is about 80 times that of air--which is why tropical storms have few strikes, and then organize, electrically, with an "eye". The dams shift sed and flow to later in the season, and that impacts marine biosphere and conductivities in the region.I could explain more, but you are too skeptical of God to listen.[This message has been edited by Mike Doran, 12-08-2003]

I have not said that the entire world would bow down before me. Just that in time what has been discovered will be recognized--that is the nature of major scientific discoveries. I will be dead when it happens, probably, so it means nothing to me, really, other than an abstraction of things to come for my spirit. I have tried to publish in Nature. The problem is my profession is legal, not science, so I must find someone to collaborate with--I have no real peers. My brother suggests attending conferences but the problem is what I am talking about crosses over and isn't very specific to a ken with a recognizable enough reduction to find publication. So where I do "publish" is in places like this to teach people like you and to hope for someone with pull to publish. I also write on my own discussion group. Eventually, these ideas I think will find collaboraters with pull enough to find publication. It's just a matter of time and luck.I have written probably a thousand pages, and the implications are very powerful and profound and practical. For instance, I was able to predict the tropical storm that hit the Carolinas--in April of this year. I called the O tropical storm about at the end of October.What I look for on general topic bbs like this is someone who is thinking about the same general ideas as I am--to find a collaborater. So really if you have some pull toward finding publication, by all means let's have at it. In the mean time, I share where my mind is for the day:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=30&ar...Sallie Chisholm's ProchlorococcusFaculty - MIT Department of Biology"We participated in three expeditions that tested this hypothesis,
in which a patch of ocean was fertilized with iron, and the response of the phytoplankton community was monitored. The results were
dramatic. Phytoplankton biomass increased 20-fold with the addition of iron, and the structure of the phytoplankton community also changed substantially. Our role in the project was to describe and understand the differential response of phytoplankton species to iron enrichment."There is an interesting aspect of iron, no? It's conductive!The reason there is a difference between surface algae Sallie Chisholm discusses in the above link and in Sci Am this month, page 52-3, and the deeper algae is explained in this way. Nucleotide parasols must alter a movement between ionosphere and conductive, field from convection charged cloud tops, and in the oceans below, later, cellular life in cummulations altered the conductivity of the oceans. Different role, but symbiotically related.Clouds are forced ELECTRICALLY!!!! Think IRON might be important in
this? Dah! Meanwhile, also at MIT is Professor Lindzen, who is chain
smoking and cannot explain to himself, or the President, what is the
mechanism behind the 'iris'. Ask yourself, why is Lindzen and the
other climatologists so out of touch? And I don't think it is
because they didn't know that iron was conductive--they have known
all along about iron firtilizers and algaes and CO2 sinking . . .If the ocean contains 20,000 cells in a drop of water, there may be another interesting chemical containment issue respecting conductivity. That is, the force exerted by a charge particle is the inverse of the distance squared from another object that it acts upon. Further, smaller objects operate based more on the rules of quantum -- and hence have more to give in terms of modulation by a biological entity . . . in cummulation. Of course, this is a powerful estimation based on the experience of these observations of river changes and then cloud behavior changes, but more direct observations of large scale conductivity can be tested by other means.We probably have the answer already, just haven't looked at the data right. For instance, a few years back there was a study that indicated that the ionsphere at night had shrunk 4-5 miles based on radio recordings and echoes of signals bouncing off the ionosphere compared to line of sight signals--the echo changed over the 35 year observation period based on 65,000 recordings.Salli Chisholm in this month's Scientific American says on page 52
several things about Prochlorococcus, which she discovered in 1988,
which are fundimentally ignorant of Gaia, or the intelligent design you are critical of, Rrhain: 1. That "the microbe's minute size enables it to capture sunlight
efficiently (there is less self-shading)"This implies incorrectly why the microbe is small. It evolved to thi
size simply because by its history it stems from smaller nucleotide
based parasol cirrus modulators and because once it became cellular,
the tiny ice crystals that form around it work more efficiently at
trapping heat underneath, and are more responsive to the charge
potential it carries given its mass and shape and size. 2. It is "responsible for half of the photosynthesis in the oceans. A drop of seaswater contains up to 20,000 cells."This is informative, but what is missing here is, like Paul Harvey
loves to say, is the rest of the story. Converting CO2 to sugar and
O2 is critical in the ocean's surface because the methane in oceans
is broken down into CO2, and food chains metabolize down to CO2. CO2
on the ocean surface will with ambiant winds gas exchange, meaning
they move between CO2 as a gas and CO2 as carbonic acid. This frees
electrons and drops the conductivity of the water in an essentially
amplified chaotic way. Carbonic acid also impacts conductivity. By
removing the CO2, the algae produces a less conductive gas exchange
state and at the same time produces an ability to have a biological
signal dependant on the level of positive input of iron in the water,
or the negative input of chemistry that is poisonous, or temperatures
that are poisonous to its existence. The algae, hence, becomes
sensitive to upwellings. IOWs the algae impacts conductivity better,
thereby modulating large scale ion waves and cloud behaviors. 3. "Even if you fertized the entire oceans [with iron], it wouldn't make much of a dent on global warming--at best postponing the inenvitable by about five years."This misstates the forcing--which is cloud and cirrus parasol, ion
movement/conductivity based. It misstates a modulated system over a
chaotic system.

I seek someone to publish my ideas with. I WILL spend the time to teach these concepts, with that goal in mind. Much is at stake.I must start w/ Gaia.Without links, Gaia was a 80s movement started by a Brit named Lovelock, who proposed a theory of a global living entity. William Golding, of Lord of the Flys fame (a Brit author), coined this theory Gaia after a greek god which came of chaos. Lovelock later collaberated with Carl Sagan's first wife, and she was a micro biologist who first proposed the origins of the mitochondria . . .The theory is flawed in that it did not have a good causal mechanism for the different colored daisies that regulated earth temperatures.I am taking it a step further. Perhaps neo gaia would be better. I am talking more specifically about the causal forcing (clouds and large scale electrical changes respecting biospheric conductivities) and even about abiogenesis. That is, the global living entity substantially predates cellular life, by nucleotide parasols that eventually move as cirrus clouds between convective and conductive clouds and ionosphere depending on their size, shape, mass and charge, and thereby are sorted and feedback infra red heat. Later, as this mechanism evolved more complexity, cells cummulatively began to influence marine conductivities below.And a contrail link:EO - 404 ErrorIf shaking your beer alters conductivity--imagine what a ship prop does to CO2 gas exchange!Is it the particles in the air or how EMF moves in the ocean below?You decide. My view is this is close to what early Gaia was about. The moon stirring oceans and nucleotide parasols influencing cirrus sorting and cloud formations.If a prop will stir the oceans and cause a line of clouds, what will the moon do?Will the moon's local gravity wave stirring eventually cause a conductivity path strong enough to direct a tropical storm?This spring, Steve McDonald at TWC tropics BB and I watched moon gravity waves and tropical storms and asked there: What did the moon path do across the GOM during TS Bill? We answered--it caused Bill to form.Why is the path of Ericka identical to the gravity wave of the moon during Bill? My view was that the upwelling increased nutrients for biological activity.And what does stirring do to nutrients, cloud cover changes, then cause biological cycling?These are the much more difficult questions, in my view, about a living earth. My answers respecting the moon's gravity wave is that at first it causes a momentary gas exchange and drop of resistance, or increased conductivity, then upwelling cold waters are less conductive, and hence less able to electrically uphold cirrus. Later, the upwelling brings nutrients which increases microbial activity and hence conductivities.Ambiant winds, storms, face similar feedbacks. It is well known that W. Pacific tropical storms are followed by algae blooms from the stirred up nutrients from below, and cirrus from tropical storms in the E. Pacific have blown into Arizona--and algae has been found inside the cirrus.At the same TWC site, we discussed how algae in the oceans about 250 million years ago evolved from green to red. Why?

What I propose is that the probablilities problem ignores a selective pressures by chaotic climate inputs and actually crude early earth living, global feedbacks. These selections then drove the early RNA world toward the complexity that some investigating the Miller experiment found improbable, or proving intelligent design. In so proposing, I am going to initially draw on a couple of seemingly unrelated ideas.1. Cirrus clouds, convection, electro mechanical movements and heat dynamics. The big Nature paper on topic is "Increases in greenhouse forcing from outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997"
John E. Harris et a Nature (v.410, p.355, 15 March 2001). From that
paper I quote:
" . . . broad-band difference signals could occur of aerosol or cloud 'contamination' remains in the notationally clear fields of view. Using available aerosol data,24 we have shown that ice cloud, particularly if composed of small crystals, does exhibit stronger absorption in the 800-1,000cm-1 than the 1,100-1,200 cm-1 window. It is quite possible that small residual amounts of ice cloud absorption remain in both sets of data. Owing to the larger
field of view, the IRIS spectra have a much higher probability of being contaminated their IMG counterparts. The observed 1 K or so enhancement of the 800-1,000 cm-1 difference signal would be consistent with this, and could also arise from change in the mean cirrus microphysical properties. We cannot separate these two effects, but we do conclude that the observed window difference spectra strongly indicate an effect involving residual small ice
crystal effects, incompletely cleared from the data. R.J.B. has performed further calculations, following on earlier work26, which confirm that the window difference specta of the magnitude observed can easily arise from small changes in the amount, size or shape of small ice crystals: these studies also indicate that the difference spectrum should be larger below 920 cm-1, which is consistent with the observed data, especially the global case (Fig.1b). Further work on these and other cloud effects in the data will be performed separately: for the present, we believe we have demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the observations to give confidence to the principals finds of this work regarding radiative forcing due to CH4, CO2, O3 and chlorofluorocarbons.
Third, we must also take into account inter-annual variability as a possible cause of the observed difference spectra. In the window region, the brightness temperature difference is strongly modulated by short-term fluxtuations, such as inter-annual variability (specific concern involves the 1997 warm El Nino/Southern Oscilation, ENSO, event). Our studies show that, while this could account of an uncertainty of 1 K in the position of the zero line in the spatially and temporally averaged differecne spectra used, it could not account for the sharp spectral features observed, nor the differential window signal just discussed."
24. Shettle, E.P. in Atmospheric Propagation in the UV, Visible, IR and MM-wave Region and Related Systems Aspects 15-1-15-12 (AGARD-CP-454, Air Force Geophysics lab., Bedford, Massachusetts, 1990).
25. Ackerman, S., Smith, W., Spinhirne, J. & Revercomb, H. The 27-8 October 1986 FIR IFO cirrus cloud study: spectral properties of cirrus cloud in the 8-12 um windo., Mon. Wealth. Rev 118 2377-2388
(1990).
26. Bantges, R., Russell, & Haigh, J. Cirrus cloud top-of-atmosphere rediance spectra in the thermal infrared. J. Quant. Sepctroc. Radiat. Transfer 63, 487-498 (1999).See also http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/smoking.htm
Daly is partially correct--and the third point of Harris is incorrect to NOT attribute the change in cirrus behavior to ENSO. Yet again, it isn't really Sea Surface Temperatures, hereinafter ("SSTs"), we are talking about--although that is how the change in cirrus distribution manifests itself. For it isn't the SSTs that force the cirrus but more how the electromagnetic fields, herein after ("EMFs"), force the cirrus behaviors--which vary the SSTs--despite the fact that warmer. SSTs are more conductive.
The recent MIT's Prof. R. S. Lindzen et al AMS article: "Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?" is available online. Lindzen's paper on iris is available at http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract... for the abstract, and the link
"print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/paper010723.pdf
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/IRIS_BAMS.pdf
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/BAMS_1459_rev.pdf
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/BAMS_1459_Append.pdf
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/...is/1423Lindzenrevised.pdf
I would mention that these climatologist s, who have great CVs but no EMF or biology kens, fail to look at the biosphere or EMFs for reasons why they are seeing what they are seeing. Therefore, like the CO2 as GHG warmers and skeptics (who usually point to clouds), they fight each other's strawmen.
Keep in mind that impedance (Z) considers resistance, inductance, and capacitance--and impedance would be impacted by SSTs . . .
But this is the context that Lindzen had as he SELECTED his data to the tropical West Pacific during La Nina.
Tom Wigley, Dennis Hartman et al, Wielicki, have all fairly countered Lindzen's extrapolations. BUT, what hasn't occurred is a square addressing of the Lindzen DATA. And the problem as is that cirrus were being moved and sorted by EMF, and that induction applied. While many have coupled warmer SSTs with cloud behaviors, even this basis is electrical in that the warmer the oceans the better they conduct. It should be understood that the earth's EMF behavior is oriented so that the south pole is actually magnetic north as to application of Fleming's right hand rule. The south pole/north pole issue (look at how your compass points NORTH--your compass is a true bar magnet with
magnetic north pointing geographically north and since opposites attract--geographical north is a magnetic south pole!). Next was the problem of the very very small induction that you would measure just
based on the earth's EMF.
Consider this link to an abstract about measurable induction by ocean currents:
http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1992/dbs9201.html
BUT, what this fails to to see is that lightening strikes and their accompanying transient fields will present EMFs that are HUGE in relation to the energies required to move tiny ice crystals in the air--particularly if these crystals carry charge characteristics. How is a pattern of Fleming's right hand rule in relation to Lindzen's
data shown? The key to the whole thing is biological modulation of the whole pattern--because that is where a FINELY tuned relationship between the radiation based oscillations of solar activity can be balanced
against the EMF character of the suns emissions. The fact that conductivity is a measure of MORE than just the temperature of the conductor, but its movement and chemical content, spells confusion for those not understanding the key forcing on the cirrus, nor even understanding the patterns meaning electrically, or what from space
and from convection the power sources are. In short, SSTs are a poor coupling device for understanding long range climate to a particular region.
ENSO was originally defined by fishermen, which therefore gave the event not just a SST context but a BIOLOGICAL one. Let's try to roughly describe what the La Nina in 1970 meant from an EMF standpoint--how EMF impacted cirrus behavior that winter. It meant of course relatively cold waters off the tropical coast of Peru
and warm waters in the tropical West Pacific. But understand there are three main ocean currents in the tropical Pacific. The North and South Equatorial and the Equatorial. Electro mechanically, the North and South Equatorials induct electrical currents FOR cirrus and the Equatorial inducts AGAINST cirrus by their mechanical
movements.
From a biological EMF standpoint, containment of biological material makes waters relatively more conductive. So even if waters off the coast of Peru are cold, if they contain upwelling of rich nutrients that commence a food chain and strong biological material, eventually, the conductivity of the waters improves. Indeed, fishermen were the first to describe ENSO--which gives the phenomenon a biological aspect that in my view has been completely lost by the modern and meteorologically educated, who have constructed the so called Japanese definition of ENSO.By simple experiment involving a glass of salt water, a volt meter and a microwave oven--the warmer
salt water is, the greater conductivity or less resistance it has. La Nina conditions off the coast of Peru tends to prevent rainfall to South America--so there isn't any shoreline biologically based conductivity enhanced for improving large scale low frequency EMF (Doran waves) activity that enhances cirrus locally, either, or biological activity that is shore or hydrate related. Along the warmest and largest and most connected expanse of oceans in the
tropical Pacific, then, induction against cirrus dominates. Fair weather and positive voltages to ground dominate, and heat escapes to space for lack of cirrus.
THEREFORE, during a La Nina along the Equatorial currents ambiant winds are going to overall produce first very conductive induction against cirrus because the waters are anomaly warm to the west, even if biologically depleted, and then very inductive waters against cirrus in the east because even though the waters become colder--they are biologically active such that they contain conductive materials near the surface that but for the biological activity would have remained more diffused to the colder, non-conductive depths of the oceans.
This, again, leads to dry conditions over the warmest and largest expanse of ocean in the world. Fair weather voltages, or positive voltages at 250 volts per meter begin to dominate the tropics. This clears the air of cirrus. The above Harris and Lindzen papers are nothing more that data that supports exactly this.
Now, comparing this electrical condition of the 1970 La Nina with the 1997 El Nino is OF COURSE going to give different cirrus behavior--we have the coldest anomaly central Pacific waters to the west--and the warmest near the coast of Peru. To the west, induction against cirrus along the Equatorial will be reduced simply by temperature--as colder anomaly means less conductive anomaly. But then to the central and eastern side of the Equatorial the biological activity fed by upwelling is reduced. Those waters become biologically inactive. In this situation, the Equatorial is either cold or biologically depleted, even if those waters were warm anomaly such that one would think that they would induct against cirrus.
Understand, too, that when you see the warm anomalies off the coast of Peru--they are just that--anomalies. The warmest waters overall remain in the Western Pacific due to coriolis turning the gyres and the warmest surface waters west. This makes induction favoring fair weather in the warmest current, the Equatorial, much more difficult than during La Nina conditions, simply from a conductivity standpoint. There is less fair weather, then, and the voltages of 250 per meter to ground. The fair weather zone shrinks and places like Peru and California are able to produce Doran waves, or low freq large scale ion movements that include convective or negative to ground voltages. The hydrology varies and further feeds back biological EMF conditions of less resistance that enhance the
condition. Meanwhile, the North and South Equatorials are able to enhance large areas of cirrus as they warm. . .Electrophoresis, Cirrus, and Gaia over Intelligent Design.Electrophoresis is a process by which nuceotides are moved by charge potentialsto categorize them. This same kind of mechanical movement and sorting can occur between the ionosphere, which is conductive, and cloud tops, where cirrus clouds are created. The cirrus behaviors, then, can feed back heat trapping and convective activity, depending on the DNA content in these ice crystals. So, as it turns out, early life would have had its selective pressure and feedback to it just based on DNA charge and mass--nothing else required. Proteins likewise would have presented electro mechanical influence on the cloud particles, and hence modulated or further dampened the cloud behaviors, and further caused "intelligent" selective pressures on the chemical, thermal and convective behaviors caused by what kinds of nucleotides were created. Even the left handedness of the nucliotides then is explained simply by the fact that the electrical mechanical properties are enhanced by uniformity that evolved against this selective pressure. In the true feedback sense, then, the earth was "alive" before individual cells, and only after time did the complexity of cellular life evolve into what we see today. This then explains the problem of origins, IOWs whether first life was in volcanic events or in the air or ocean--self replicating nucleotides were undoubtedly EVERYWHERE on earth and this genetic material was SHARED by the global biosphere, as it attempted to modulate, dampen, the chaotic inputs to what was forming climate in early earth history. As the biosphere became more effective at this, nucleotides that were good at this modulation passed on to future generations, and the design began to APPEAR intelligent.

LM wrote:"You seem to be jumping to the assumption that there are enough nucleotides in the clouds to have the effect you want."Hold on. EARLY living earth evolution would have ONLY had nucleotides. That's it. And in that context I am fairly confident that there was sufficient nucleotides, as there was no chemical or biological preditor. Then, the next step would have been cellular life, but cells would first have had to adapt to altering conductivities in the marine biosphere and then form a symbiotic relationship with whatever was forming above with the cirrus, given the region where this occurred, and the overall chaotic input for that time."How much nucleotide content do you need for your theory to work?"Particles allow water to form on them--the question becomes one of size, shape, mass and charge--which would VARY given different climate states to feedback the best conditions for a nice, small crystal stratifed layer of cirrus that fed back infra red heat and aided convection. But to answer your question, the one I think you may be asking, algae has been found in tropical storm cirrus clouds from the E. Pac in the Southwest. Just go to our yahoo group: Yahoo and type words NASA, cirrus, and algae in the search function and the link should come up. I think that the storm studied was a big ENSO one in 1997." you still need to collect data before you can state anything even close to a strong hypothesis. "Way ahead of you.
TROPICAL STORM PETER SPECIAL ADVISORY NUMBER 2
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
NOON EST TUE DEC 09 2003...PETER ALMOST A HURRICANE...SATELLITE IMAGES INDICATE THAT PETER APPEARS TO BE DEVELOPING AN EYE
FEATURE SUGGESTING THAT THE CYCLONE IS STRONGER THAN PREVIOUSLY
ESTIMATED AND FORECAST. THIS IS THE REASON FOR THIS SPECIAL
ADVISORY.AT NOON EST...1700Z...THE CENTER OF TROPICAL STORM PETER WAS LOCATED
NEAR LATITUDE 20.3 NORTH...LONGITUDE 37.1 WEST OR ABOUT 800
MILES...1290 KM...WEST-NORTHWEST OF THE WESTERN MOST CAPE VERDE
ISLANDS.PETER HAS BEGUN MOVING TOWARD THE NORTH DURING THE PAST HOUR OR TWO
BUT IT SHOULD MOVE TOWARD THE NORTH-NORTHEAST NEAR 12 MPH...19
KM/HR LATER TODAY.SATELLITE IMAGES INDICATE THAT MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS HAVE
INCREASED TO NEAR 70 MPH...110 KM/HR...WITH HIGHER GUSTS. THERE IS
A POSSIBILITY THAT PETER WILL BECOME A HURRICANE LATER TODAY.TROPICAL STORM FORCE WINDS EXTEND OUTWARD UP TO 115 MILES
...185 KM FROM THE CENTER.ESTIMATED MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE IS 990 MB...29.23 INCHES.REPEATING THE NOON EST POSITION...20.3 N... 37.1 W. MOVEMENT
TOWARD...NORTH NEAR 12 MPH. MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS... 70 MPH.
MINIMUM CENTRAL PRESSURE... 990 MB.THE NEXT ADVISORY WILL BE ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER AT
4 PM EST.FORECASTER AVILAIf you go to the same yahoo group and type the words "2003 hurricane forecast" you will see I predicted a heavy and shifted season--in APRIL. This is based on dams on the Orinco and West African rivers. I also predicted a Carolina landfall at that time--just based on marine biosphere conditions. Further, if you do further searches there I explain the French heat wave that killed 15,000 based on a regional bloom.

I therefore have a challenge for you:Give us an example of a scientific paper you could write.One solid paper with a built in control would be a discussion of Antarctica climate. The region would be area of similar solar insOlation--the Southern Oceans--so solar radiation is controlled. Peter Doran, has research that indicates that that much of the interior has cooled, wereas there is an area by the boots of South America and Antarctica where there is incredible warm anomalies--in the 5 degree Celcius range. The ONLY difference is that this area contains a countercurrent of induction significance to the electrical movement of cirrus clouds. The prevailing current around Antarctica is the circumpolar, which inducts, per Fleming's right hand rule relative to the earth EMF, AGAINST cirrus formation. Put another way, just the movement of the circumpolar in the Southern Ocean (the surface experiences extreme winds consistent with the current and would move the surface salt water at a good clip) would offer IMPEDANCE to large scale low frequency ocean to ionosphere capacitive couplings. This reduces the cirrus cloud formations and the heat trapping that can occur. Now, here is were it gets counter intuitive--peer reviewed data indicates that to depths of 10,000 feet the Southern Ocean has warmed. While this warming certainly would aid in the melting of B-21 and B-22 where the induction direction differs, and the 5 degree Celcius warmings have been found, it is not consistent with the cooler anomalies that Peter Doran has found, or the expanding ice. BUT, what happens with salt water is that the warmer it is, the more conductive, BUT since the induction is against cirrus, the impedance, which is a function of both resistance AND induction, still causes cirrus reduction.I picked this example because Michael Crichton recently spoke on the subject, based on ignorance, really, fighting the strawman whether CO2 is a green house gas when it is decidely a gas exchange electron freeing changer of ocean surface conductivities:Page Not Found - MichaelCrichton.com"I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing."The funny thing is that he quotes the research of one same Peter Doran, who shares my surname (but won't answer my email).The earth magnetic field is weakening--8 percent in the past 100 years. That means respecting the south pole there are less isobar/solar wind driven cloud organizations. At the same time the oceans have warmed. In the southern oceans, the circumpolar current mostly runs around Antarctica inducting against cirrus--and cooling the ocean surface. If the ocean is warmer, the large scale conductivity increases. If the ocean has more biological activity w/ more CO2, it is more conductive, but, again, inducting against cirrus, which tends to cool the surface--that area will oscillate between being too cold to conduct or when conductive move against cloud formations. There is a built in control, in that where there is a counter current which is near the boots of Antarctica and South America---there the temperatures have been strongly anomaly warm (5 degrees Celcius) and big burgs have broken off, like B-21, 22 recently.As for Africa, between dams and a decreasing EMF, the jet stream meanders more, and brings more water to even the strongest of fair weather zones in Africa. More CO2 in the water allows ambiant winds to bring conductivites sufficient to support, electro mechanically, rainfall where it has not fell before. Just south of the south of the Sahara is one of the most struck places on earth. The problem with all of this is that climate is more than just temperature, but also chemical modulations. Life where it should not be may be dangerous because it is not in proper modulating context. This will prove to be the problem and solution, and the problem is more than just fossil fuels. It includes fossil firtilizers, a similar unsustainable, contrary to Gaia practice as burning fossil fuels.For fun, more Crichton to slice and dice:Page Not Found - MichaelCrichton.com"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Climate is biological and electrical. Let's vote on it.
Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this."The fascist's influence even in our educational institutions has come to this. This is socialism in reaction to fascism. Do you have more big words for it?"Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd."This is where Cricton may get a concensus but not the science. There are things inherently predictable about biological systems. I can say, for instance, for a fact, that 100 years from now, provided my children's children children survive, that their body temperature will be 98.7 degrees F. Since climate is biological, we can do things not to protect the biosphere's health.Crichton ended his speech with a blurb on Lomborg. Lomborg was doing nothing more than making strawmen arguements on the CO2 as a GHG debate--which is a false debate from the start because CO2 is not a significant forcing as a GHG--it IS a significant forcing as electrical agent in the global electrical circuit. SciAm was correct in avoiding his non-sense. But at the same time, the scientific community should hang its head low on the bio electrical aspects of climate. BTW, Crichton is largely correct about the global climate models--they are crap. You don't fully analyze a living system with chaos math.

There is a joke about law school. It's like an @$$hole transplant. If it takes, you become a politician.I know I have a big ego, but I hope it doesn't get in the way of having a conversation and perhaps forming a relationship that yeilds publication. I live in the middle of no where, academics -- wise, and have no peers. None. I am a lawyer by profession, and my best education in electro magnetism, the physics involved, is military training. So the politics toward publication by me would be and has been not good.BTW, I talked about my forecast at TWC and started quite a firestorm there when it came true. It created so much controversy they booted me.Let me ask you--why do you think a hurricane has an eye? When the Carolina storm was a cat 5, why was it so big? Why are some strong hurricanes with small eyes?How about this. If you have a small but extremely high voltage of negative ions over the eye in the ionosphere, it couples in a capacitive manner with the ocean surface, drawing in a point POSITIVE ion concentration. The ionosphere is conductive, because the air is thin and ionozed to pass electrons and also conductive is the ocean, with the salt water, and salt ions (and carbonic acid to CO2 gas exchanging freeing electrons). Around the negative voltage in the ionosphere is a positive ion concentration (unlike charges attract) and around ocean surface on the eye is a positive concentration, attracted to the charges above. They are not too attracted, in that there isn't a shorting between ionosphere and ocean in the form of a lighting strike. That is because air is extremely insulative of a direct current--so the capacitive effect takes place. Now, on the ocean surface a NEGATIVE voltage forms around that positive charge, and you end up with below the cirrus disk of a tropical storm a negative voltage and above, in the ionosphere, a positive voltage. This is why hurricanes won't have lighting in the core of the storm!Alright. So you have a huge eye--what does that mean? It meands that instead of a point event, a DISK of negative ions forms in the ionosphere. Below, vortices form with a pattern that essentially result in a larger area of a RING of positive voltages in the oceans below, where the same dynamic forms above and below the cirrus disk--electrically organizing the storm. The storm is organized and sustained because the cirrus are levitated additionally by the transiant fields above and below the storm.One more thing. Water as a dielectric in a capacitive coupling--is about 80 times that of air. Therefore, the capacitive coupling doesn't occur over the cirrus disk or the clouds below that disk--too much water and too high of a capacitance value. But over the "eye" the coupling occurs--and organizes the storm.Questions?

"What is the nucleotide content necessary in a particle of ice to allow sorting due to differences in electrical potential? Is the nucleotide content in ice crystals high enough for sorting to occur?"Here is how we figure out what someone's DNA is (RNA sequencing is similar). My brother actually did it -- studying heart tissue genome from rats.You take a sample. You amplify it. Then you put it in a gel that is electrically nuetral, largely resistive. Then you apply a direct electrical potential to the strip of gel. The nucleotides will move in the opposing field, anode and cathode, and sort by shape, size, mass and charge. In BANDS. Bands of tiny cirrus are exactly what the Harris et al paper in Nature talks about in terms of significant capture of infra red heat.The question you ask is for specifics. However, what I am explaining to you is that the voltages between ionosphere and ocean, cloud top, vary chaotically, such that whatever that specific is--it will be reached at some point such that the banding character matters. The proof is in the pudding. IOWs, the evidence is in the nucleotides that survive themselves. You have so called junk DNA which has no function--but yet would be meaningful in terms of the criteria of shape, size, wieght and charge of a parasol."Two simple questions that need to be answered before your hypothesis can become theory. Talking about hurricanes does nothing to indicate nucleotide content in clouds."This false, because tropical storms and particle based cloud nucleation have been correlated. I could go on and on, but it is difficult to put what I know in conversation--to teach you what you already know. Modernly, the evidence of what was is in design of what is--it is unlikely that there are free nucleotides in cirrus. There are, however, been algae found in clouds. And there are no two celled three celled, four celled creatures. Why?" So, for the first question I need a range of numbers and for the second question I need an yes/no. That simple."Electropheresis goes about as close to imitating the conditions as you are going to get, and the range of answers cannot be descrete because we don't know the exact electrical patterns 3-4 billion years ago on earth. But we do know that there is a range of values.The ionosphere huge voltages above tropical storms have been directly observed. The capactive coupling is already peer reviewed science. Cirrus contain microbial life now. This is anything but simple.

"But you are taking every tiny thing that could even remotely be described as electrical and attempting to claim it has cosmic significance."Initially, nucleotide parasols probably had no influence on cloud formations below them. Nucleotides carry a negative ion value. That means, at a minimum, by shape, weight, size and CHARGE, cirrus clouds would BAND and tend to be SORTED. This then resulted in complexity by sorting, which would tend to band the cirrus such that it would fall back toward earth together. My view is eventually this evolved to modulate the chemistry AND temperatures, globally, that would favor the reformations of these nucleotides that did feedback local climate conditions that favored convection where chemistry and temperatures existed that was to their liking."Have you considered the possibility that your limited exposure to the fields of meteorology, physics, and fluid dynamics might be affecting your ability to synthesize your claim?"Don't be skeptical of me. Ignore me. I am simply trying to teach you an idea, which you can accept or reject. Therefore, spend your energy on what I am teaching you, not what or who I am. I have more than enough background to know material."It's hard to know where to begin with your claim precisely because you are bouncing from one concept to the next, not sticking around long enough to develop the significance of any. It is not enough to merely recognize that the ocean, being saltwater, has ions in it. You have to explain how your process happens. Why does the ocean become negative?"The ionosphere is negative, couples in a capacitive way through the eye to the ocean surface, which then attracts positive ions. Then, in the ocean around the eye, the ocean becomes relatively positive.Why the ionosphere positive? Lightning strikes go both ways, after all.There are no strikes in a tropical storm. I am explaining to you why.