I wrote back in April:
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.environment, sci.geo.meteorology
From: a_plutonium
Date: 23 Apr 2007 22:34:02 -0700
Local: Tues, Apr 24 2007 12:34 am
Subject: #6 physics of Earth's First Air-Conditioner -- Thistle Seed ;
monograph-book: +Solving Global Warming and Building Earth's First
Planetary Air-Conditioner

a_plutonium wrote:
Monograph-Book: "Solving Global Warming and Building Earth's First
Planetary Air-Conditioner",
Archimedes Plutonium, Internet book published 2002-2007
(assimilated April 2007 in sci.physics,sci.environment,soc.history)

Chapters:
(1) Preface and Introduction
(2) Crutzen's plan to solve Global Warming versus AP's plan
(3) major human problems are MultiFactorial or MultiVariable, and not
linear
(4) Global Warming and Human Overpopulation are linked problems that
have to be solved in tandem
(5) Is Global Warming a extinctor-problem? Can we extinct ourselves by
not solving Global Warming?
(6) Issue of Biodiversity as it relates to Global Warming and Human
Overpopulation
(7) physics of Earth's first Air-Conditioner and future Air-
Conditioners

I should do myself a favor come July and stop starting new books and
collate the ones I began since
January of 2007. I am finding myself wanting to add onto those books
where the numbering is
inadequate as to where I left-off. I need more order in the
organization of publishing books on the
Internet and the numbering is crucial in organizing. Since I do not
know the number for the last post
on Global Warming I begin this post with #51. So I need to take a
break from writing books and get
the prior books better organized.

Watching the news last night I see that parts of England are flooded
from too much rain. And a typhoon
hit Pakistan. But here in the Midwest USA where I live, looks like
another 3 month drought without any
rainfall. This drought without summer rain has been going on for about
5 years now.

So what I wonder is whether Rainfall is a parameter of a Zero Sum
System. I raised this question before
and am raising it again. I wonder if the Rainfall throughout the world
(where world is synonomous with planet
Earth) plays a Zero Sum in that if one spot of Earth gets too much
rain for that year, another spot gets
too little for that year.

So that the typhoon of Pakistan and the flooding in England is because
of the drought in other places such
as South Dakota. So that Rainfall throughout the weather system on
Earth follows a Zero Sum pattern for
the most part and if too much rain falls somewhere another place is
drought.

This question would suppose Earth has a specific capacity for rainfall
and that the JetStream is the main
component of where rain occurs. So that in Global Warming
intensification that the JetStream becomes more
narrow in its range, dumping more water where too much rainfall
already occurs and depriving other spots.

So my questions are whether Global Warming forces the JetStream to be
narrow ranged and whether
Rainfall is Zero Sum.

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

So my questions are whether Global Warming forces the JetStream to be
narrow ranged and whether
Rainfall is Zero Sum.

I think there is a cool answer and cool research. We have collected
accurate weather rainfall since
about 1890s in most regions of the Western USA and can send that data
through a computer to
collate whether the rainfall in the Western part of the USA, ie, west
of the Mississippi is Zero-Sum.

My guess is that it is nearly Zero-Sum with only a small gradual
deviation. And because of Global
Warming that the Jet-Stream becomes more narrow in range and hence the
less spreading of
rainfall over larger areas.

The example this year is flooding rain in Texas and Oklahoma and the
drought in northern states such
as South Dakota.

In fact, South Dakota for the past 5 summers has experienced little to
no rainfall in the critical summer
months. If this intensifies then South Dakota and surrounding states
can be called "the land where
it does not rain in the summertime".

So if a computer were to collate the rainfall of much of the USA for
the past 100 years, I am confident
it will find that rain is nearly Zero Sum, which means that if one
spot gets too much rain then another
spot has to be that much dryer. So I suspect the records of the past
100 years can validate that claim
of Zero Sum.

As to the Jet-Stream affected by Global Warming, I need to research
that question.

But I am very much distraught and stressed by this summer's lack of
rain. I thought I had provisions
to meet a challenge like this, after having struggled last summer, but
I find myself inadequately
prepared. I have not lost any plants yet, but there is little to no
growth on existing stock. Trees taller
than myself have sufficient enough roots to reach the clay subsoils
where there is enough moisture
but bushes have a struggle, especially my currants and gooseberries.
It would be nice if I had
what I used to have in Utah back in the 1970s when we had a locked
gate with the Moab Irrigation
company and where I drop the gate and a half hour later the entire
land is flooded in a foot of water.

What has helped me immensely in these summer droughts is the roof
asphalt shingles I use as
mulch. The shingles keep the moisture from evaporating as fast. If not
for that mulch, I would have
lost alot of my new plants.

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

In article .com,
says...


So my questions are whether Global Warming forces the JetStream to be
narrow ranged and whether
Rainfall is Zero Sum.

I think there is a cool answer and cool research. We have collected
accurate weather rainfall since
about 1890s in most regions of the Western USA and can send that data
through a computer to
collate whether the rainfall in the Western part of the USA, ie, west
of the Mississippi is Zero-Sum.

My guess is that it is nearly Zero-Sum with only a small gradual
deviation. And because of Global
Warming that the Jet-Stream becomes more narrow in range and hence the
less spreading of
rainfall over larger areas.

The example this year is flooding rain in Texas and Oklahoma and the
drought in northern states such
as South Dakota.

In fact, South Dakota for the past 5 summers has experienced little to
no rainfall in the critical summer
months. If this intensifies then South Dakota and surrounding states
can be called "the land where
it does not rain in the summertime".

So if a computer were to collate the rainfall of much of the USA for
the past 100 years, I am confident
it will find that rain is nearly Zero Sum, which means that if one
spot gets too much rain then another
spot has to be that much dryer. So I suspect the records of the past
100 years can validate that claim
of Zero Sum.

The long-term mean for the US is 29.13 inches with a standard deviation
of 2.18 inches. It's not particularly zero-sum. The calculation you
want done has been done and the annual US mean national precip is
available at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html

From there, in inches, the annual precip for the US has been:

1896 26.66
1896 28.68
1897 28.11
1898 28.70
1899 27.43
1900 29.88
1901 26.63
1902 29.46
1903 28.42
1904 26.84
1905 31.84
1906 31.73
1907 30.17
1908 29.17
1909 30.64
1910 24.37
1911 28.94
1912 29.75
1913 29.31
1914 28.27
1915 32.06
1916 28.90
1917 24.44
1918 27.95
1919 30.99
1920 30.39
1921 27.94
1922 29.11
1923 30.75
1924 25.95
1925 25.94
1926 30.12
1927 31.15
1928 28.67
1929 29.50
1930 25.09
1931 26.79
1932 29.60
1933 26.80
1934 25.05
1935 28.85
1936 26.59
1937 29.72
1938 28.85
1939 25.82
1940 29.63
1941 31.85
1942 30.58
1943 26.07
1944 30.08
1945 32.25
1946 30.42
1947 28.57
1948 29.65
1949 29.70
1950 29.99
1951 30.33
1952 25.63
1953 27.51
1954 25.23
1955 26.81
1956 24.57
1957 32.90
1958 29.25
1959 29.88
1960 27.95
1961 30.41
1962 27.80
1963 24.77
1964 29.23
1965 28.95
1966 26.67
1967 28.61
1968 29.52
1969 29.79
1970 28.54
1971 29.29
1972 30.77
1973 33.99
1974 29.72
1975 32.02
1976 25.62
1977 29.62
1978 29.17
1979 32.02
1980 27.38
1981 29.17
1982 32.99
1983 33.81
1984 30.48
1985 29.41
1986 30.61
1987 28.46
1988 25.25
1989 28.42
1990 31.40
1991 31.77
1992 30.67
1993 31.97
1994 30.04
1995 31.69
1996 32.59
1997 31.29
1998 32.97
1999 27.84
2000 27.73
2001 28.58
2002 28.66
2003 29.95
2004 32.88
2005 29.84
2006 29.39


--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com

Harold Brooks wrote:
In article .com,
says...

So my questions are whether Global Warming forces the JetStream to be
narrow ranged and whether
Rainfall is Zero Sum.

I think there is a cool answer and cool research. We have collected
accurate weather rainfall since
about 1890s in most regions of the Western USA and can send that data
through a computer to
collate whether the rainfall in the Western part of the USA, ie, west
of the Mississippi is Zero-Sum.

My guess is that it is nearly Zero-Sum with only a small gradual
deviation. And because of Global
Warming that the Jet-Stream becomes more narrow in range and hence the
less spreading of
rainfall over larger areas.

The example this year is flooding rain in Texas and Oklahoma and the
drought in northern states such
as South Dakota.

In fact, South Dakota for the past 5 summers has experienced little to
no rainfall in the critical summer
months. If this intensifies then South Dakota and surrounding states
can be called "the land where
it does not rain in the summertime".

So if a computer were to collate the rainfall of much of the USA for
the past 100 years, I am confident
it will find that rain is nearly Zero Sum, which means that if one
spot gets too much rain then another
spot has to be that much dryer. So I suspect the records of the past
100 years can validate that claim
of Zero Sum.


The long-term mean for the US is 29.13 inches with a standard deviation
of 2.18 inches. It's not particularly zero-sum. The calculation you
want done has been done and the annual US mean national precip is
available at

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html

From there, in inches, the annual precip for the US has been:

1896 26.66
1896 28.68
1897 28.11
1898 28.70
1899 27.43
1900 29.88
1901 26.63
1902 29.46
1903 28.42
1904 26.84
1905 31.84
1906 31.73
1907 30.17
1908 29.17
1909 30.64
1910 24.37
1911 28.94
1912 29.75
1913 29.31
1914 28.27
1915 32.06
1916 28.90
1917 24.44
1918 27.95
1919 30.99
1920 30.39
1921 27.94
1922 29.11
1923 30.75
1924 25.95
1925 25.94
1926 30.12
1927 31.15
1928 28.67
1929 29.50
1930 25.09
1931 26.79
1932 29.60
1933 26.80
1934 25.05
1935 28.85
1936 26.59
1937 29.72
1938 28.85
1939 25.82
1940 29.63
1941 31.85
1942 30.58
1943 26.07
1944 30.08
1945 32.25
1946 30.42
1947 28.57
1948 29.65
1949 29.70
1950 29.99
1951 30.33
1952 25.63
1953 27.51
1954 25.23
1955 26.81
1956 24.57
1957 32.90
1958 29.25
1959 29.88
1960 27.95
1961 30.41
1962 27.80
1963 24.77
1964 29.23
1965 28.95
1966 26.67
1967 28.61
1968 29.52
1969 29.79
1970 28.54
1971 29.29
1972 30.77
1973 33.99
1974 29.72
1975 32.02
1976 25.62
1977 29.62
1978 29.17
1979 32.02
1980 27.38
1981 29.17
1982 32.99
1983 33.81
1984 30.48
1985 29.41
1986 30.61
1987 28.46
1988 25.25
1989 28.42
1990 31.40
1991 31.77
1992 30.67
1993 31.97
1994 30.04
1995 31.69
1996 32.59
1997 31.29
1998 32.97
1999 27.84
2000 27.73
2001 28.58
2002 28.66
2003 29.95
2004 32.88
2005 29.84
2006 29.39



Thanks for the valuable information. I would disagree with your
evaluation that it is not zero-sum. I would say the above supports the
claim that rainfall is very much a zero-sum parameter because in
1905 it was 31.84 and yet over a century later it was 29.39 in 2006.
And keeping in mind that the measuring of the rainfall has steadily
improved in those 100 years of tabulation.

It reached 33 in the 1970s and 1980s but that may have been due to
increased hurricane rainfall and the ability to measure hurricane
rainfall.

I am speculating that as the Global Warming increases, that the melted
ice cap water will make a steady small increase in the yearly
rainfall totals. But because Global Warming affects the Jet-Stream
that the interior of continents become dryer. So the increase in
rainfall occur along coasts and the interior becomes more desert
climate.

I need some physics analogy for why Global Warming decreases the range
of the Jet-Stream.

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

At the end of the year when the rainfall for all of the USA is
tabulated, it will probably come out as a figure of
30" average over the USA. So the reason that California and upper
MidWest are in a drought is because the
rainfall slated to go to these drought stricken regions was dumped off
in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. So
rainfall is very clearly a Zero-Sum parameter.

And we can go back in time to find where parts of the USA had severe
droughts and find where other
regions had way too much rain.

So what role does Global Warming have in rainfall? I believe its
greatest impact on rain is the Jet-Stream,
whereas the Jet-Stream before Global Warming had a very much larger
range and thus bringing rainfall
over larger land area. But with Global Warming intensifying, causes
the Jet-Stream to be more restricted in
range, and where it stays mostly far up north in Canada. Thus the
moisture from the Gulf waters is dumped
in Texas and nearby and never really makes it to the drought stricken
upper MidWest.

I am working on a physics model that imitates this Jet Stream pattern.

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

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/na.html

From there, in inches, the annual precip for the US has been:

1896 26.66
1896 28.68
1897 28.11
1898 28.70
1899 27.43
1900 29.88
1901 26.63
1902 29.46
1903 28.42
1904 26.84
1905 31.84
1906 31.73
1907 30.17
1908 29.17
1909 30.64
1910 24.37
1911 28.94
1912 29.75
1913 29.31
1914 28.27
1915 32.06
1916 28.90
1917 24.44
1918 27.95
1919 30.99
1920 30.39
1921 27.94
1922 29.11
1923 30.75
1924 25.95
1925 25.94
1926 30.12
1927 31.15
1928 28.67
1929 29.50
1930 25.09
1931 26.79
1932 29.60
1933 26.80
1934 25.05
1935 28.85
1936 26.59
1937 29.72
1938 28.85
1939 25.82
1940 29.63
1941 31.85
1942 30.58
1943 26.07
1944 30.08
1945 32.25
1946 30.42
1947 28.57
1948 29.65
1949 29.70
1950 29.99
1951 30.33
1952 25.63
1953 27.51
1954 25.23
1955 26.81
1956 24.57
1957 32.90
1958 29.25
1959 29.88
1960 27.95
1961 30.41
1962 27.80
1963 24.77
1964 29.23
1965 28.95
1966 26.67
1967 28.61
1968 29.52
1969 29.79
1970 28.54
1971 29.29
1972 30.77
1973 33.99
1974 29.72
1975 32.02
1976 25.62
1977 29.62
1978 29.17
1979 32.02
1980 27.38
1981 29.17
1982 32.99
1983 33.81
1984 30.48
1985 29.41
1986 30.61
1987 28.46
1988 25.25
1989 28.42
1990 31.40
1991 31.77
1992 30.67
1993 31.97
1994 30.04
1995 31.69
1996 32.59
1997 31.29
1998 32.97
1999 27.84
2000 27.73
2001 28.58
2002 28.66
2003 29.95
2004 32.88
2005 29.84
2006 29.39


They called it the Dirty Thirties of the dust bowl on the Plains, but
actually from the above
it was 1910 that had the least amount of rainfall. Perhaps the decade
of the thirties was the
worst decade. But then the measuring in early years may have been
rather crude and not
precise enough.

The above list shows that Rainfall is a Zero-Sum parameter, unlike
temperature which is
steadily rising due to Global Warming and perhaps due to the Sun's
solar flare cycles.

It maybe that Rainfall is a Near-Zero-Sum parameter where there is a
small gradual
increase in Rain over landmass over time.

Now one way to perhaps guage or assess Zero-Sum is to ask the question
was there ever
a geological time in which there were no deserts to speak of. Where
all the landmass
continents were green and lush with plants and that no dry desert
existed? I know of no
such time. If there was such a time would perhaps debunk the Zero-Sum
claim. Keeping in
mind that Rain could still be Zero-Sum even if there were no deserts
in that all areas
would receive more rain than that of a desert climate.

But one of the reasons we have deserts is so that other regions can
have more rainfall than
they otherwise would receive.

Now I would think that Rainfall should be slightly increasing and not
a perfect Zero-Sum. Increasing
due to the fact that temperatures are increasing and freeing up water
locked in the polar regions.
And due to the fact of more heat energy in the atmosphere as a means
of delivery of more water
to the continental landmasses. So as temperature increases due to
Global Warming that hurricanes
and typhoons increase in frequency and intensity dumping more water as
rainfall. So the Zero-Sum
is more likely to be a Small Increasing Sum. And the last decades of
1980s and
1990s shows us the increasing rainfall trend.

Now I wonder if some plants can tell us easier, whether rainfall is
slightly increasing. Are plants like
ferns increasing worldwide? Are some weeds that need more water than
other weeds increasing?

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

They called it the Dirty Thirties of the dust bowl on the Plains, but
actually from the above
it was 1910 that had the least amount of rainfall. Perhaps the decade
of the thirties was the
worst decade. But then the measuring in early years may have been
rather crude and not
precise enough.

The above list shows that Rainfall is a Zero-Sum parameter, unlike
temperature which is
steadily rising due to Global Warming and perhaps due to the Sun's
solar flare cycles.

It maybe that Rainfall is a Near-Zero-Sum parameter where there is a
small gradual
increase in Rain over landmass over time.

Now one way to perhaps guage or assess Zero-Sum is to ask the question
was there ever
a geological time in which there were no deserts to speak of. Where
all the landmass
continents were green and lush with plants and that no dry desert
existed? I know of no
such time. If there was such a time would perhaps debunk the Zero-Sum
claim. Keeping in
mind that Rain could still be Zero-Sum even if there were no deserts
in that all areas
would receive more rain than that of a desert climate.

But one of the reasons we have deserts is so that other regions can
have more rainfall than
they otherwise would receive.

Now I would think that Rainfall should be slightly increasing and not
a perfect Zero-Sum. Increasing
due to the fact that temperatures are increasing and freeing up water
locked in the polar regions.
And due to the fact of more heat energy in the atmosphere as a means
of delivery of more water
to the continental landmasses. So as temperature increases due to
Global Warming that hurricanes
and typhoons increase in frequency and intensity dumping more water as
rainfall. So the Zero-Sum
is more likely to be a Small Increasing Sum. And the last decades of
1980s and
1990s shows us the increasing rainfall trend.


Learn how to format paragraphs, moron. It's basic computer literacy.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com