The Gaia theory of Earth is a fakery and a ludricous theory and any
scientist who claims themselves as a scientist should never accept the
Gaia theory. And I should not be starting a discussion of serious
science by starting it with the Gaia theory, but the reason I do so is
because, if the Gaia theory had any truth to it-- it would now be
saying that the planet Earth would be increasing in cloud formation all
over the globe and thus decreasing Global-Warming. But reality shows us
otherwise that as Global Warming increases that this planet cloud cover
is decreasing.

In a post several weeks past I remarked that I had lived in southeast
South Dakota in 1986-1987 and I noticed that in the summers we had 2 or
3 days of hot humid temperature followed automatically and rhymically
by a thunderstorm with rain. Now in 2001-2005 we have 3 weeks of hot
humid weather, no clouds and no rainfall. And the years of 2004 and
2005 have been almost 3 months without any rain.

I said in a post several weeks ago that freshwater on continents
compared to sal****er in oceans and that the water cycle maybe a Zero
Sum Game where the amount of fresh water compared to salt water is a
somewhat fixed constant and so with Global Warming increasing that the
fresh water dumped on coastlines due to hurricanes and monsoons is
depriving the interior of those continents with fresh water rainfall.
So if this pattern increases means that the interior states of the USA
will become deserts and the coastal states such as Florida will be
flooded every summer.

But what I wanted to say most of all in this post is that Global
Warming seems to destroy cloud formation in the interiors of
continents. And I wonder what the mechanism for that cloud destruction
is. Does it involve the altering of the Jet Stream? Does it involve the
fact that the atmosphere where clouds are formed are heated up so much
that it burns away clouds so that they cannot form. If you do not have
clouds, it is pretty hard to have rainfall.

Has any meteorological data base kept track of clouds for the past 30
years which could provide clues and answers as to the diminishing of
cloud formation over the interior states of the USA.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote in message
oups.com...
The Gaia theory of Earth is a fakery and a ludricous theory and any
scientist who claims themselves as a scientist should never accept the
Gaia theory.

The Gaia hypothesis is actually regarded as a series
of hypotheses, best described by Kirchner's Spectrum
of Gaian Hypotheses ... from Weak to Strong:

These hypotheses are as follows, the comment at the end
reflects an approximate indication of the measure of
support from the scientific community.


INFLUENTIAL
The biota has a substantial influence over certain aspects
of the abiotic world. This hypotheses is supported.

CO-EVOLUTIONARY
The biota influences the abiotic environment, and the latter
influences the evolution of the biota by Darwinian processes.
Debated

HOMEOSTATIC
The interplay between biota and environment is characterized
by stabilizing negative feedback loops. Debated

TELEOLOGICAL
The atmosphere is kept in homeostasis not just by the biosphere,
but in some sense _for_ the biosphere. See "Daisyworld"

OPTIMIZING
The biota manipulates its environment for the purpose of creating
biologically favorable conditions for itself. Skeptical

Further, with context, see:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_jim.html


And I should not be starting a discussion of serious
science by starting it with the Gaia theory, but the reason I do so is
because, if the Gaia theory had any truth to it-- it would now be
saying that the planet Earth would be increasing in cloud formation all
over the globe and thus decreasing Global-Warming. But reality shows us
otherwise that as Global Warming increases that this planet cloud cover
is decreasing.


The Gaia hypotheses for example consider timespans
such as the 2.5 billion years commencing from the very
formation of the planet, during which the % of carbon
dioxide was replaced by a % of oxygen by means of
primitive photosynthetic plankton, allowing the subsequent
evolution of aerobic life.

Geological timescales.

Our "reality" to which you refer above is less than the
blink of an eye in the life of the planet.


....[trim]...

Has any meteorological data base kept track of clouds for the past 30
years which could provide clues and answers as to the diminishing of
cloud formation over the interior states of the USA.

Your rainfall data should go back a fair way, but I'd hazard
that it has already been extensively analysed to determine if
there exists any signature and/or cycles of change evident in
it.




--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

Why don't you go play scientist somewhere else?

wrote:
The Gaia theory of Earth is a fakery and a ludricous theory and any
scientist who claims themselves as a scientist should never accept the
Gaia theory. And I should not be starting a discussion of serious
science by starting it with the Gaia theory, but the reason I do so is
because, if the Gaia theory had any truth to it-- it would now be
saying that the planet Earth would be increasing in cloud formation all
over the globe and thus decreasing Global-Warming. But reality shows us
otherwise that as Global Warming increases that this planet cloud cover
is decreasing.

In a post several weeks past I remarked that I had lived in southeast
South Dakota in 1986-1987 and I noticed that in the summers we had 2 or
3 days of hot humid temperature followed automatically and rhymically
by a thunderstorm with rain. Now in 2001-2005 we have 3 weeks of hot
humid weather, no clouds and no rainfall. And the years of 2004 and
2005 have been almost 3 months without any rain.

I said in a post several weeks ago that freshwater on continents
compared to sal****er in oceans and that the water cycle maybe a Zero
Sum Game where the amount of fresh water compared to salt water is a
somewhat fixed constant and so with Global Warming increasing that the
fresh water dumped on coastlines due to hurricanes and monsoons is
depriving the interior of those continents with fresh water rainfall.
So if this pattern increases means that the interior states of the USA
will become deserts and the coastal states such as Florida will be
flooded every summer.

But what I wanted to say most of all in this post is that Global
Warming seems to destroy cloud formation in the interiors of
continents. And I wonder what the mechanism for that cloud destruction
is. Does it involve the altering of the Jet Stream? Does it involve the
fact that the atmosphere where clouds are formed are heated up so much
that it burns away clouds so that they cannot form. If you do not have
clouds, it is pretty hard to have rainfall.

Has any meteorological data base kept track of clouds for the past 30
years which could provide clues and answers as to the diminishing of
cloud formation over the interior states of the USA.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

"Dennis M. Rodgers" wrote in message
...
| Why don't you go play scientist somewhere else?

Hey! He is in his sandbox playing nicely, not bothering your choir
practice, why don't you go play censorship and policeman somewhere else
and keep your stupid nose out of a newsgroup open to discussion?
Androcles

Androcles wrote:
"Dennis M. Rodgers" wrote in message
...
| Why don't you go play scientist somewhere else?

Hey! He is in his sandbox playing nicely, not bothering your choir
practice, why don't you go play censorship and policeman somewhere else
and keep your stupid nose out of a newsgroup open to discussion?
Androcles



Sure. Why not? The signal-to-noise ratio in SGM has deteriorated to
the point where it doesn't matter anymore. Morons and idiots have taken
over, like your buddy, Socrates Molybdenum. That clueless person
actually thinks he (she) (it) is talking science. When they let him
out of the assylum, he may find that his gross generalizations and
misconceptions are exactly that. If SGM is a forum for discussing
bizzare sci-fi concepts like air conditioning the earth, then I have
absolutely nothing but nasty comments to contribute.

In article . com,
"Attila the Bum" wrote:
Katrina bashed New Orleans
and is hailed as the "worst"
natural disaster this country
(USA) has suffered.

But, the press also compares
this event to one in the early
1900s, the storm that hit
Galveston, Texas (?) and killed
10,000 (?).


Yes, but there was no warning back then, and it was only a cat 3 storm (the
storm surge is what killed so many).

The point here, is, that the
weather is _not_ worse
than it was 100 years ago
(a tenuous suggestion, given
the change in building codes
and probable lack of any
order to evacuate; but ya
gotta deal with the data
dat ya got :-)

Wasn't 'til after WWII or so that
the human population curve
started to "J" (maybe due to
growth, or an artifact caused
by better surveys?); there
ought to be a plot available
on the Web somewhere, like:

http://www.prb.org/Content/Navigatio...opulation/Popu
lation_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

This growth and timing is
supported by my personal
research -- counting the
number of articles in the
New York TImes indices
at the library related to
"pollution" -- it plots out as
a "J-curve" as well, beginning
to rise dramatically in the
20s or 30s IIRC, maybe later.

So ...? Global warming as a
function of human activity
has affected climate change?

If ice is melting at the poles,
then there's more water vapor
in the air, and potentially more
rainfall, or at the least, higher
humidity. And that water should
be widely distributed, even to
the interiors of continents.

Is the Gobi or Sahara growing or
shrinking? Are water tables rising or
dropping? Montana's been claiming
drought conditions for years. like
it's some sort of dramatic change
from earlier times (dependency upon
snow pack, measured, could get
useful info there about increases
or decreases in the annual snow-
fall).


Atty (The planet is falling, into the sun.
More peanuts, for anyone? 17 :-)

"Dennis M. Rodgers" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
| "Dennis M. Rodgers" wrote in message
| ...
| | Why don't you go play scientist somewhere else?
|
| Hey! He is in his sandbox playing nicely, not bothering your choir
| practice, why don't you go play censorship and policeman somewhere
else
| and keep your stupid nose out of a newsgroup open to discussion?
| Androcles
|
|
|
| Sure. Why not? The signal-to-noise ratio in SGM has deteriorated to
| the point where it doesn't matter anymore. Morons and idiots have
taken
| over, like your buddy, Socrates Molybdenum.
| That clueless person
| actually thinks he (she) (it) is talking science. When they let him
| out of the assylum, he may find that his gross generalizations and
| misconceptions are exactly that. If SGM is a forum for discussing
| bizzare sci-fi concepts like air conditioning the earth, then I have
| absolutely nothing but nasty comments to contribute.

He's not my buddy, I'm only defending his right to free speech and my
right not to read his crap by placing him in a kill-file. It is posts
like
yours that raise the noise-to-signal ratio, but you too have the right
to
be *plonked* as well.
Since you seem to be somewhat sensible I haven't done that but
it will only take a moment, so why not temper your frustration,
raise the signal level instead of the noise level and not post
impossible requests?

Androcles.

Katrina bashed New Orleans
and is hailed as the "worst"
natural disaster this country
(USA) has suffered.

But, the press also compares
this event to one in the early
1900s, the storm that hit
Galveston, Texas (?) and killed
10,000 (?).

The point here, is, that the
weather is _not_ worse
than it was 100 years ago
(a tenuous suggestion, given
the change in building codes
and probable lack of any
order to evacuate; but ya
gotta deal with the data
dat ya got :-)

Wasn't 'til after WWII or so that
the human population curve
started to "J" (maybe due to
growth, or an artifact caused
by better surveys?); there
ought to be a plot available
on the Web somewhere, like:

http://www.prb.org/Content/Navigatio...ion_Growth.htm

This growth and timing is
supported by my personal
research -- counting the
number of articles in the
New York TImes indices
at the library related to
"pollution" -- it plots out as
a "J-curve" as well, beginning
to rise dramatically in the
20s or 30s IIRC, maybe later.

So ...? Global warming as a
function of human activity
has affected climate change?

If ice is melting at the poles,
then there's more water vapor
in the air, and potentially more
rainfall, or at the least, higher
humidity. And that water should
be widely distributed, even to
the interiors of continents.

Is the Gobi or Sahara growing or
shrinking? Are water tables rising or
dropping? Montana's been claiming
drought conditions for years. like
it's some sort of dramatic change
from earlier times (dependency upon
snow pack, measured, could get
useful info there about increases
or decreases in the annual snow-
fall).


Atty (The planet is falling, into the sun.
More peanuts, for anyone? 17 :-)

"cat3" in retrospect, of course.

Katty was cat4?


Atty (cat0, AFAIK; nice-guy :-)

In sci.physics, Attila the Bum

wrote
on 9 Sep 2005 13:02:47 -0700
.com:
"cat3" in retrospect, of course.

Katty was cat4?

Katrina was a cat5 at one point -- not for very long, though.
But it was a monster cat4 storm when it hit New Orleans.

http://www.weathernet5.com/weatherblog/index.html
claims it's the most destructive hurricane ever. This is debatable,
but one might add the qualifier "since modern hurricanes were
tracked in the 20th century" or some such and make it right.
There are also issues of what might have been, had the levees been
up to snuff -- but they weren't really designed for anything
beyond a cat3.

The odd thing was that it hit Florida as a cat1 -- and nobody says
much about the damage there. (Perhaps there wasn't much there.)



Atty (cat0, AFAIK; nice-guy :-)



--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.