How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed Part 1
Abstract: This essay briefly reviews historical facts and certain important contributions that certain important individuals have made which allows us to propose and to begin to share our novel understanding of the formation of the previous Northern Hemisphere’s low elevation glaciers.
In this essay, the first of a yet undetermined number of continuing essays, we establish that the primary cause of how the prehistoric glaciers (long since melted), first identified by Louis Agassiz, were formed by the prehistoric volcanic activity which occurred at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean.
Preface
This is not a formal scientific article. It is written for a general reader who could care less who stated what and when and where. We understand that a PSI reader just wants to read about the latest ideas (right or wrong) about things ‘scientific’. And if we write something which is questionable, we expect a reader to make comments in an attempt to correct what we have written.
Essay
Louis Agassiz was a naturalist who saw large erratic boulders laying on the earth’s surface in northern Europe and concluded they were evidence of previous thick glaciers that had carried these boulders to where these thick glaciers melted. But Louis Agassiz, when asked ‘What is your greatest achievement?’ answered: ‘I have taught men to see.’ Our novel idea of How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed is based upon the unquestionable observations that Agassiz and others have drawn to the attention of the ‘scientific community’ and certain well accepted natural phenomenon that seems to be seldom considered when it is should be considered.
Image 1 (above) is an observation upon which our novel understanding is fundamentally based. Dr Joel Glass, about this image wrote (better him than us): “Among the changes in clouds are the new massive areas covered by noctilucent clouds. … Noctilucent clouds are formed of water ice crystals and are quite high in the atmosphere. … The massive size of the area which these clouds cover can be seen in the NASA satellite photograph (top of article).”
Galileo was critical about what Aristotle had written that seemed to be not observed fact as it seemed Aristotle had written that it was. We have to question: How does Glass know that the massive area seen in the image is ‘new’? Clearly, Glass did not begin identify all that can be seen in this image. Galileo demonstrated that not only were observations critically important in his science, but also that accurate definition was also critically important.
We write this essay not to be critical of Dr Joel Glass, or Agassiz, or whomever, but ‘accurate definition’ requires we not dismiss anything as not being possibly critically significant. For example, ‘quite high in the atmosphere’ does not accurately define the approximate elevation of the noctilucent clouds when the approximate elevation is near the top of the mesosphere (about 80 plus kilometers (50 miles). Glass never mentioned the ‘white clouds’ which are also seen in the image. And he never mentioned when this NASA photo was taken. And he never mentioned the ‘black hole’ which seems to be centered on the North Pole.
Agassiz saw the significance of the erratic boulders but it seems he and/or geologists have not asked: How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed? Just as Glass did not seem to ask: From where do the water molecules, which form the noctilucent clouds, come? And if one assumes, from the troposphere, another question becomes: How do they get from the top of the troposphere, through the stratosphere, to near the top of the mesosphere?
And if one assumes the only other possible where—space—we have a factor not commonly considered but a factor which Newton, the physicist, did consider. Here, we acknowledge this possibility and refer an interested reader to the case of Lewis Frank (University of Iowa) and his ‘questioned’ observations of small comets entering the earth’s atmosphere (google it).
Our novel idea is based solely on the assumption that for a glacier to form, it has to snow a lot.
And we do not forget (ignore) that the earth spins on an axis (according to Galileo) which produces a centrifugal effect on the matter of the earth, its atmospheric molecules, and the atmosphere’s condensed matter (condensation nuclei, cloud particles, and ‘haze’ particles). Newton calculated that the earth was not a perfect sphere due to the centrifugal effect but it seems to have been an ignored factor (phenomenon?) since that time. But we do not ignore that the earth spins and that the resulting centrifugal factor could cause the ‘cloud hole’ to form.
What has been written to this point is what I (Jerry L Krause) had read and observed and my obvious conclusion that it had to have snowed a lot (for some reason) to form the thick glaciers for which Louis Agassiz observed the evidence (large erratic boulders) of their previous existence. For which reason I have concluded that the Arctic Ocean had to have been heated by volcanic activity at its bottom. The result of which was that for some significant period of historical time the Arctic Ocean was ice free.
I knew that Richard Cronin had, upon retirement, began to study volcanic activity. So I asked him, as a coauthor, to write the following portion of this essay:
Since the Earth is a globe , the crust is thickest around the Equator and thinnest at the North Pole (sounds like my physical appearance).
The Gakkel Ridge spans directly beneath the North Pole and Sam Carana describes a “cluster of CO2-explosive volcanoes” located directly beneath the North Pole. Submarine volcanoes line the entire length of the Gakkel Ridge. There is also the Laptev Sea Rift.
I may have shared the work of James Edward Kamis about Plate Climatology and certainly the GeoReactor by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon (Marvin). We became acquainted in 2006.
M.a. Padmanabha Rao is another Internet acquaintance who writes of solar flares being fission events as well as fission observed in Neutron Star mergers.
Vasily D. Rusov writes of “fission cycling” in Neutron Star mergers (NS – NS). That is, an abundance of neutrons produced by NS-NS drives the production of heavy, neutron-rich Actinides and Lanthanides. These heavy guys decay, but the products of decay, confined by the intense gravity field, build back up to the Lanthanides and Actinides. It’s an autocatalytic process. Simply stated, there’s a lot more of the Lanthnides and Actinides floating around out there to form planetary-centered natural fission reactors.
As described by James Kamis, the present uptick in heat, CO2, and a pinch of methane is coming from within. Serpentinization of mafic and ultramafic minerals by hydrolysis plus Fischer Tropsch reactions produce methane and water. Abiotic hydrocarbons. Another autocatalytic process.
The current heat flux coming from within the planet is only thought to be by conduction thru the mantle (47 TW). Wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s way more. Separate discussion.
Pretty much the formation of all major celestial bodies is the same, with stars large enough to confine the fission reactor to produce fusion. The aforementioned abiotic hydrocarbon process is active on all planets and major moons. The moon Io is the most volcanic celestial body in the solar system.
With the heat coming from within the planet, surface temperatures are warmer, but the SABER satellite system shows cooling in the upper atmosphere. We are in a solar flare minimum as of recent.
I have included more of his commentary, than specifically necessary, to establish his credibility about volcanic activity and its cause. For, The Gakkel Ridge spans directly beneath the North Pole and Sam Carana describes a “cluster of CO2-explosive volcanoes” located directly beneath the North Pole. Submarine volcanoes line the entire length of the Gakkel Ridge. There is also the Laptev Sea Rift., establishes the observed fact that the Arctic Ocean has been strongly heated by significant volcanic activity. And many of us have seen more than one evidence of the tremendous results of prehistoric volcanic activity to which most ‘modern’ evidences of this continuing activity appear to be insignificant.
While we (‘we’ because Richard critically examines all that I write) know that not all of the critical secondary factors of our novel explanation of How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed have yet been reviewed, we have clearly identified the critical primary factor—volcanic activity. With this clear statement, we conclude this essay for it is only the first of a yet unknown number of brief continuing essays.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Michael Clarke
| #
The polar ‘Black Hole’ is caused by the fact that Polar Satelite tracks do not actually go over the pole.
Generally they graze the polar regions with about 4 degrees of cover being LEFT out of the observation area.
Otherwise a good essay with lots of thought about where that water ice comes from.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
If you save the image and zoom in on the black hole you will see that there is a step at the bottom.. This is where the satellite crosses the start line after doing its dance. This is to ensure that pass after pass is essentially over the same spot at 12 hr intervals.
Zoom in real close and you can see the joins!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I have done what you suggested and I believe I see to which you refer. I also see some very faint cloud (?) with a straight (?) at the edge of the black hole. Is this your joins?
From what you just stated, it seems that the image is a composite of several passes 12hrs apart. Is this your understanding?
It seems you have saved me from making a serious error of using a novel idea to explain the black hole. SCIENCE requires the free flow of ideas and knowledge and observations like this.
And suddenly, because of your comments corrected what I had pondered, I see that Dr Joel Glass may have made an error. I will consider this possibility in Part 2. So, be watching for the next essay.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
The satellite that was used to generate that composit image is not named so I cannot be definitive, BUT… Polar satelites orbit in such a way that they pass over(Very closlely) the same spot twice a day.
This is achieved by having orbits that the measuring equipment scans all the land at the equator and with ever increasing overlap at the satellite nears the pole.
They cannot go directly over the pole as that would make their orbits non-repetitive they would walk the earth overflying a spot about every 40 days.
Google the Polar satellites for a detailed description of these orbits and observe the changed pattern of measured land as they travel north or south and the hole that they CANNOT see at the poles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Thank you, thank you for enlightening us. Looked at your link and my comment is that I am an experimental chemist and do not have the mathematical ability to follow the quantitative numbers but I do claim to be ‘quantitatively qualitatively’ able to understand some of what I have read.
So I will allow you to check if I have it right. ‘Most likely the satellite from which Image 1 was produced had an altitude of 600km and its maximum latitude north was a little more than 80 degrees and it circled the globe about 15times/day with a period of little more than 1.5hr. Which means that the period of the image is about 90min/6 or 15min. A short time span so we would not expect that what we see to being changing much, hence a near instantaneous photograph. Then, 12hrs later there would be another pass.’
What I do not qualitatively understand yet is how the ‘strip’ images ‘join’ to form the circular image which is Image 1. So, maybe you can try to help me to see this.
This is SCIENCE!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I just looked again at a printout of Image 1. And I saw I could draw a near square, based upon the white clouds, about the black hole. So I am considering that the 4 lines which I have drawn define the paths of the satellites during 4 specific times.
And I further speculate that the near ‘north-south’ paths are near the spring-autumn equinoxes. And the ‘east path is the ‘morning’ pass and the ‘west’ path is the afternoon pass. And the near ‘east-west’ paths are near the winter and summer solstices. Stop my speculation here because I want to know if you consider I am on the right track.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Charles Dougherty
| #
Nice work for starters. Joining each other’s knowledge was a great idea. I look forward to more essays on this topic.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Charles,
Isn’t Michael great?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
OK you are getting close nut still a little way from understanding the orbital mechanics. This would be so much easier if we knew exactly which satellite produced that composite picture.
This youtube shows what you are striving to understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnF_ljgk3gk
Most polar satellites orbit around the earth SEVEN times in twelve hours. Their paths are controlled( yes they are steerable to a small extent)
The observed landmass seen by these satelites is always a compromise, and the instruments trace a swathe of FIXED dimensions. this is usually calculated to be 14/th of the equatorial distance. Generally there is a small gap at the equator that is never scanned! and there is ALWAYS a large seven sided patch around the poles that is now scanned.
This makes things very difficult for the people who use the data to calculate stuff.
The MATH is fiendishly difficult!
I an not sure if the climate modelers differentiate for what is missed out from those polar regions as the North pole average temperature is way warmer than that at the south pole!
Ok hope that the satellite image is from the NASA TERRA satellite
There is detailed info about the instruments and you can even see the current position of it from this link
https://terra.nasa.gov/about
The NASA image you show either took 12 or 24 hours to be gathered and composed.
Hope that helps some more.
As I said above, the math regarding the orbits, and the interpretation of the data delivered by the instruments is fiendishly difficult as some parts of the planet are always omitted while some are scanned several times. The observed hole should be about 1000 miles north of the satellites track.
The steps in the hole are where the images sort of overlapped and some computer code, or human hand, fiddled with the data so as NOT to show bands of much more frozen water in regular places radiating outwards from the pole.
Hope this really helps.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
“Hope this really helps.”
Help me to do what? I am trying to do what I have never done before. I have no doubt that you understand the mechanical details of what produced the static image.
I just watched the video and I basically understood what I saw. For I saw that the earth and its atmosphere is a dynamic system and not static like Image 1. I see that a satellite, over the equator, which revolves with the same period as that of the earth, produces a frame of reference which allows us to see the actual dynamic motions of the atmospheric clouds.
But I see that such a satellite, in a near ‘polar’ orbit with a period of one day, would not allow us see the dynamic motions of the ‘polar’ clouds as the centrifugal (a word I heard in the video) effect moves the clouds horizontally toward higher latitudes
This variable ‘horizontal centrifugal effect’ due to the approximate atmosphere’s rotation with the earth’s polar surface beneath it was where I planned to go in Part 2. But you (Michael)) showed up and informed me that I could not assume the black hole was the result of the centrifugal effect. Which I should have reasoned from the beginning as I understood that the ‘horizontal centrifugal effect’ increased to a maximum value at far lower latitudes than those at the edge of the black hole.
And I do not have the mathematical skills to calculate at what specific latitude this mathematical maximum value should occur. But I suspect you do know what this specific latitude should be.
But a fact of the rotating earth and its atmosphere is that this ‘horizontal centrifugal effect’ is constantly moving the condensed matter (liquid and solid particles) of the atmosphere toward the equator.
Which when we look at the static Image 1, we do not see this motion of the clouds (blue or white).
I will continue to respond to your any more of the ‘new’ information, but you have provided enough ‘background’ to compose Part 2 to illustrate more SCIENCE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael and Interested PSI Readers,
At Richard’s posting (https://principia-scientific.com/naturally-occurring-fission-plate-climatology-and-the-georeactor/) I just learned that what I was planning to write in Part 2 must be put on hold until I read what James Edward Kamis ( plate climatology) has already written. And I suggest you might do likewise.
For this is what SCIENCE should be.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Forgot to give the link: http://www.plateclimatology.com/
Reply
Michale Clarke
| #
This conversation has significant importance in many fields of science.
I am a generalist, small order polymath, I know a little about an awful lot. The opposite of an expert, those that know an awful lot about a specific subject.
The continued human existence long term, requires us to know about the risks and that knowledge should help the future survival.
Regarding these centrifugal effects upon the earths atmosphere, as an old oceanic wind power sailor may I refer you to the ‘Roaring Forties’ the ‘Furious Fifties’ and the ‘Screaming Sixties’ as this is where that centrifugal effect is most marked, BUT, the effect is much more clearly defined in the southern hemisphere due to the vast southern ocean. Thus what applies to one hemisphere will not apply to the other.
Regarding Weather and satellite coverage.
The near polar satellite’s give a diurnal picture of what happens to the atmosphere at seven specific ‘swathe’s’ at very specific times of day. This is not really useful except that they cover areas not covered by other means, especially the great southern ocean.
The geo-stationary satellites give the coverage of the populated regions 24/7, but they have the disadvantage of observing a sphere, so are focused at one place and the observations are distorted in concentric rings about that spot! I think from my experience of radar, I am an electronics engineer from before you could get a degree in electronics, then the distortion is exponential as the surface curves away from the focus point and that effect gives about 200 miles of good data with less good data as your instruments look outwards.
Geo-stationary observation requires INPUT from those receding places.
I could go on about other significant factors, sun spot oscillations, volcanic activity, super volcanoes, meteors, asteroids, comets and preparations required to survive the worst that WILL happen sometime in the future.
I am not a prophet of doom and am very old so hopefully won’t be around to witness any failure to prepare for the future of mankind.
Back to clouds and centrifugal effects.
Polar satellites only look at specific times of day, there are plans to increase the population of those satellites, so orbits will be giving ever better coverage. The capital expense to get full coverage is hugely significant and therefore probably wont happen any time soon. Mind the Gap!
Similarly with geo-synchronous satellite coverage quite literally tens of thousands would be needed to give ideal 24/7 coverage of the earths weather for very little reward especially as radiosonde balloons can do the job for much less cost and the few chosen focus points give good coverage of most of the landmass. I don’t think a geostationary satellite can be positioned above the poles, but the HUGE differences between North and South poles has significant effects upon weather and climate. I have been unable to establish if the climate modelers treat them differently.
What is really needed for our survival is multi discipline, hard to achieve, observation of this planet and governments that listen to properly supported science about what is being observed. Scientific Journals are twentieth century, Blogs are the way to go!
Conclusion; Blinkered scientist division, national focus, disinformation, even secrecy is not pushing forwards understanding of the knowns.
The un-knowns are coming to an unprepared human existence!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You wrote: “I am a generalist, small order polymath, I know a little about an awful lot. The opposite of an expert, those that know an awful lot about a specific subject.”
Do you realize (appreciate) how critically important being a GENERALIST is?
I wrote: “read what James Edward Kamis ( plate climatology) has already written.”
I have now done this and I did not find that he wrote the word–cloud or clouds–one time.
And you compared the difference between a GENERALIST and an EXPERT as you wrote: “The opposite of an EXPERT, those that know an awful lot about a specific subject.”
However, Kamis does review the fact of Alfred Wegener (and fellow continental drift SCIENTISTS) contributions to geology without noting the fact that Wegener was a meteorologist. Hence, we know that Wegener must have been a GENERALIST. As was Lewis Agassiz, a naturalist, who showed the geology community (EXPERTS) that erratic boulders was evidence of glaciers that had melted.
So, i ask: Is a GENERALIST a NATURALIST?
i often quote R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather & Climate, 1966). In the first paragraph of his introduction he wrote; “Throughout the history of modern science dating from that time it was significant that ‘natural philosophy’ was almost a synonym for physical science. … And [it] did not begin to lose its validity until–with the tremendous success of experimental laboratory physics of the late nineteenth century–the applications of basic physical theory were largely diverted from the natural macro-environment of man to the essentially simpler physical systems which he invented for himself and learned to construct and control. ”
Now, according to Sutcliffe, the meteorologist, ‘that time ‘ was the time of Newton. So, it seems Sutcliffe was clueless about the contribution that Galileo had made about a century before Newton’s contributions. If you read Crew and de Salvio’s translation of Galaleo’s ‘Dialogues’ you will find that Galileo was very much a GENERALIST.
I doubt if EXPERTS have ever heard (read) about FIRST PRINCIPLES.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Was hoping to find another of your comments this morning. But no such luck.
I have been pondering the fact that you claim to be a GENERALIST knowing a little bit about many things. Yet, you seem to know a lot about satellites whose orbits are nearly perpendicular to orbits which are nearly aligned with the equator. And I consider this special knowledge makes you an EXPERT.
I have recently written comments about the scholarship of James Edward Kamis ( plate climatology) which Richard in his recent posting drew to a PSI reader’s attention. And after I read his 66 page effort, I have drawn attention to the fact that I did find the word–cloud–once. Which I admit was a criticism of his scholarship because it seemed he was an EXPERT and not a GENERALIST.
As I am critical of anyone who does not see that a climate is merely the average of weather factors (meteorology factors) at a given location at each day of a year over a period of many years
Hence, I consider that Edward should have tried to explain how the random volcanic activity which warms the oceans at their bottoms and ultimately at their surfaces could influence weather locally and than globally.
However, I have stated I do not intend to criticize any ones’ scholarship; my object is to help you and Edward see what it seems I see. And I conclude that is the same reason for your comments and for Edward’s 66 pages of scholarship. You are sharing your specialized knowledge and Edward is sharing his in hopes that we all will finally get rid of the wrong ideas, leaving only the possible right ideas with which to better understand the natural weather and climate of our planet.
I am struggling to compose Part 2 to keep you engaged in our conversations and I finally see I need to try to contact Edward about my concerns about his scholarship. For it seems as a historical fact that through communication (sharing of ideas) that what is now considered SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE came to be. Many individual working together, each in their individual way.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
You flatter me, I am old, over 80, my field of expertise is that of a logician. I have made my crust solving peoples problems in many industries. About 75% of those problems were caused by the users not knowing the size of the box they were operating in. I hate the phrase ‘Think out side the box’ my term is ‘Think about the size of the box, what has been misssed out!!!???’
OK back to your very astute questions about the Atmosphere, perhaps you can help me understand something that has puzzled me for some time.
First question; Warm air tends to rise. CO2 is the heavier of the common gases in our atmosphere, yet scientists say that the atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen with only 4% Carbon Dioxide. Do these ratios persist as you go higher and higher? Logic tells me that for a heavy CO2 molecule to get all the way up there it must be very hot! Gravity will always be pulling upon it harder than on Nitrogen and Oxygen, therefore logic says that the concentrations must vary according to height as temperature over small distances will tend, indeed, be almost exactly the same. Gravity pulls down, heat pushes up proportionally to the molecular weight.
Second question. Jet aircraft fly very high 35000 ft is common. Jet engines produce lots of very hot exhaust a proportion of which is CO2 the rest Nitrogen and some unburnt Oxygen lots of water vapor,unspent fuel etc.
How much atmospheric warming does a airplane flight across the Atlantic do to the atmosphere compared to an ocean liner? Jet 500 passengers, time 6 hrs, liner 5000 passengers, time 4 days
Third question. I saw somewhere a reference to water ice particles very, very high up almost in space they are so high. The person posting did not have any idea how those particle got there, nor how they stayed there if indeed that’s what they did. Any ideas on this?
I will try be more prompt with my posts.
Michael
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael’
I hope you don’t mind ifI interrupt your dialogue with Jerry.
The concentration CO2 in the atmosphere is .04% not 4 % and it is concentrated in the troposphere. Because of the high solubility of CO2 in water most of it is contained in water droplets as carbonic acid, not as a gas.
The gas content of the atmosphere is indeed stratified with altitude and the components of the atmosphere can be found by Googling NOAA site. The different colors of the aurora are a result of the interaction of solar particles with different gases at different altitudes. In the higher regions of the atmosphere gas molecules, like oxygen and nitrogen, break apart and become elemental gases.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I forgot to tell you how I know so much about polar satellites in particular.
I have been in touch with several climate modelers over the years, I have extensive math knowledge about the path they take over the Earth and the fiendishly difficult math required to get a true figure for what ever they are trying to measure.
Sadly, when I pointed out that the statistical error bars, of say oceanic rise/fall are hundreds if not thousands of times greater than the ‘effect’ they claim to be seeing, they stopped talking to me.
To illustrate this take an Orange and seven rubber bands. Place the rubber bands so that they circumvent the orange all being quite close to where the stalk was, but all on squewed hemispherical alignment. Now look at that orange and you can see where the black hole is at both poles. Now take any rubber band individually and understand that the width of that band represents the direct coverage of the surface that the satellites instruments are measuring. At the equator that rubber band is a LONG way from the next rubber band, yet close to the poles they overlap! Thus the measurement is less at the equator than it is at the poles. ADD to that the fact that the polar measurements are repeated at least twice, a boarder rubber band would cause polar measurements to overlap with more land covered on each pass!
So much for the math, now the really technical stuff. A radar pulse has a shape in 3D space mainly determined by the aerial. Very narrow and you don’t get a lot of coverage, remember the width of the rubber band, broader, and again remember you are measuring the surface of a spherical body so sheer distance comes into play. How do you determine the average time taken for your pulse to get there and back with an accuracy of a millimeter over a 700 km distance!!!
They can use all sorts of fancy mechanisms frequency modulation, laser lights they all have similar problems.
Then there is the actual shape of the pulse being beamed down and the power delivered back to the receiver. I used to be a radar technician and 2 MW 1 microsecond pulses were good enough to get height, speed and course over the ground for high flying military aircraft. We knew that the accuracy was measured in meters rather than cm, with an aircraft flying 10km high, a factor determined by the shape of that pulse of power rather than any other limiting factor!
The scientists are claiming to be able to measure a few millimeters of change over a 700 km distance of a HEAVING curved mass of ocean that they overfly twice a DAY!
What if it was calm on the first pass and blowing a full gale 12 hours later!!!!!
I better get off my soap box, but perhaps I have made you think about those claims of such accurate measurements and I did not mention temperature once!
That composite picture that started this conversation represents 12 hours of at least 7 over flights, (Probably 14) so the joins are showing disjointed real time observation of a very energetic air mass.
Michael
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
One of the fundamental phenomenon I was planning to Introduce was diffusion. (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-two/) I would like you to read this as a bit of background about my experiences.
First, temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of gas molecules. But gas molecules have different masses so the average speed of water molecules (18amu) is greater than the average speed of the heavier nitrogen (28amu) and oxygen (32amu) molecules and the average speed of these two molecules is greater than that of carbon dioxide (44amu).
If the warm air was perfectly clam,the air would layer with a greater percentage of the carbon dioxide at the base and then oxygen, nitrogen with water molecules at the top. But warm air rises as you state so this vertical convection and the resulting horizontal convection (winds) keep the atmosphere uniformly mixed (meteorologists say) well up into the mesosphere.
But you are old enough to know that there were two groups of scientists involved in the Manhattan Project. One at Los Alamos (sp?) and the other at Oak Ridge. What they did at Oak Ridge was more of a secret than what was done at Los Alamos. For those at Oakridge had to enrich the naturally occurring fissionable isotopes of Uranium relative to its stable isotopes. And they did this by two different methods by diffusion and by using the centrifugal effect based upon the slightly different masses of the isotopes. A very, very subtle difference.
One thing a person needs to realize when discussing air is that in about a cubic meter of space there are 6.02 X 10^23 gas particles at 1atm pressure and 25C. Which is what allows us to properly refer to the average kinetic energy of these particles.
Gas molecules are always trying to fill space and in the case of our atmosphere you understand that they are hindered by gravity which not only produces a density gradient (which is never found to be inverted) and a temperature gradient (which near the surface ,some times up to an altitude of a km or two) becomes inverted when the air is ‘dry’ and the nighttime sky apparently cloudless.
Water molecule because of their small mass continually diffuse upward through the slower moving heavier molecules. But water molecules are the only atmospheric gas which condense as they encounter colder and colder temperatures. And when they condense these particles will begin settling downward. But ice particles also have a vapor pressure so I can image, given clam air I was planning to propose that the ice crystals might form near the top of the mesosphere if its air temperature is about 81K.
These are some of the mechanisms I was planning to review in my sequence of essays.
Contrary to some people’s beliefs. any thing that humans can do is insignificant to what nature has done and continues to do.
Relative to you 3rd question I have written: “And if one assumes the only other possible where—space—we have a factor not commonly considered but a factor which Newton, the physicist, did consider. Here, we acknowledge this possibility and refer an interested reader to the case of Lewis Frank (University of Iowa) and his ‘questioned’ observations of small comets entering the earth’s atmosphere (google it).”
Don’t be concerned about ‘promptness, I plan to review Part 2 tomorrow and send it off to PSI for John O’Sullivan’s consideration.
Thank you for your questions and comments.
Have good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Jerry, Congratulations on your article. Absolutely fascinating and insightful commentary.
Do not let Michael get away until you have drained him of all his knowledge.
Thank you.
Matt
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I agree with you that I should not let Michael get away until we have drained him dry. But I have no control over him as I have no control over you. All I can do is hope and PRAY.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Thanks for all that reading Jerry I have lots of questions suggestions and even a disagreement or two so will ponder and compose accordingly.
Thank You Matt, but I don’t think you have enough time to learn half of what I can merely recall as vague memories. The Human condition is one of learning, applying and forgetting chronologically!
Take for instance that seed bank in Norway. Placed where it requires less expense to keep really cold.
Just how do the propose getting access to it if it it under 1 mile of ice?
I know I am being big headed but I have been saying ‘Michael’s Law states that there will be unintended consequences of every action. !!!!!! NB not some but ALWAYS!
Ok todays tidbit. Please define the speed of light.
Did you know that rather than change it they changed the length of the standard meter after some particles in CERN were found to be moving just a bit faster than Einstein said was possible.
It was a very small change after all…… Does this alter any other derived measurements?
I have thought some more about my rubber bands and the good data from polar satellites, who if anyone has questioned the calculations used to assess the data in ever more curved ground away from that 200 or so miles of good data? If they are out on the high side then warming detection is inevitable…..
Back to reading and composing.
Michael
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
A question: Do you understand that any measurement has an uncertainty?
Do you know that the prehistoric people who dug 56 regularly spaced holes at Stonehenge defined the English rod with which the land of the USA was surveyed?
I am so amazed about the observed fact which so many seem unaware.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
Yes I knew that, there are also the weather predictions about the UK weather, ‘Red Sky at Night….’
This sort of prediction and eventual observed effect are probably the corner stones of religion, science, farming and animal husbandry dating from way back when.
Michael. Note the small letters no capitals here.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Okay, I will stop using capitals for emphasis.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb, I don’t mind a bit and thanks for pointing out my typo. Your comments about the Aurora bought back some vivid memories as I have witnessed both Northern and Southern aurora. My recollection’s are that they are not the same! The Northern tend to be greener and the Southern tends to the violet. Some of the formations are never seen in one but often seen in the other. I guess that these differences are due to the different weather and base temperature that rising air starts from, or the north magnetis pole making different effect upon the incoming cosmic rays, or does ozone play a part in these difference’s?
You seem to have posed more questions with such a small comment! Well done.
What a grand subject for a thesis!
Michael
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Herb what a brilliant fact you bought to my attention, CO2 being soluble is carried aloft by water vapor which cools as it goes up locking the CO2 in, until it reaches the temperature inversion layer where as the water droplets get hotter the CO2 is slowly released. Such elegant logic that fits the known facts about the atmospheres temperature and the height above the ground!
This leads me to the Elephant in the room!
Water vapor as created by humans in the daily course of existing has been increasing as the population increased and as the technology to produce water vapor in many different process has been increasing for a lot longer than the current CO2 increase.
It seems to me that water vapor is the driver of the weather systems, CO2 is a bit player. The great oceans are a HUGE buffer and regulator and it will take a lot of very careful measurement to determine any future trends not involving that big furnace in the sky.
Michael
Reply
HerbRose
| #
Hi Michael,
Yes water is the major conductor of energy in the troposphere. I don’t know if you have read James McGinn’s theory that water in the troposphere exists as nano droplets of liquid water, not as a gas.He maintains, and I agree, that water cannot exist as a gas below the boiling point of water. My support for his theory is because it takes 540 calories/gram to convert 100 C water into 100 C steam which is a huge divergence from the norm and cannot occur in a liquid where the molecules are in contact with each other. This energy is used to break hydrogen ions which bind the individual molecules into a larger unit. As energies added to water the larger unit of water is broken into smaller and smaller droplets held together by fewer and fewer bonds. Evaporation is where small droplets break from the main body and carry away heat. It is these droplets that moderate and buffer the energy in the troposphere and the energy in the surrounding gases is minimal. If you divide the temperature at an altitude by the density of the atmosphere at that altitude you will get a comparison of the kinetic energy of a constant number of molecules at different altitudes. This shows that the kinetic energy of molecules slowly increases with altitude in the troposphere, where the kinetic energy of the molecules is lower than the boiling point of water, then increases in an exponential rate above the troposphere where the kinetic energy of molecules exceeds the boiling point of water.
The difference in colors of the aurora at.the two poles is probably due to theEarth’s magnetic field directing positive iOS to one pole and negative ions to the other. I think the gases in the layers of the atmosphere are the same, they just react differently to different charges.
I think the water that humans contribute to the atmosphere is insignificant compared to the amount contributed by plants, which pump ground water into the atmosphere, and evaporation from bodies of water.
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Carbon dioxide and the cloud droplet and condensation nuclei are topics which have been largely unexplored. And I arrogantly claim that one must be a chemist to begin to understand it.
And I have great difficulty in accepting what Herb Rose and James McGinn simply state as if there ideas are supported by observed facts. Just so you know where I stand on many of their ‘curious’ ideas.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Good evening Jerry & Herb,
I have read and looked at the links you provided and have a grasp of the proposed theory and that of vulcanism, El Nino/La Nina but I have some rather difficult questions to pose. But I intend to post those ideas and questions as single topic items so as not to draw red herrings all over the place. So my fist comment/suggestion is regarding the Ponderosa Dowel and the 10hr fuel load.
The Forestry man gave you the precise reason and you are both close to how and why it works so well!
The Dowel is drilled down its center, probably to very close tolerance so that the water vapor rate from the fibrous end and the smoother sides is exactly the same. In this way it matters not that the water vapor forms a dew to get to the sensor or stays a vapor and transpires through the sides, or even both, the 10hr fuel load is the same which is exactly the information he requires. He told you that the Dowel was changed at specific intervals, this is to prevent aging and weathering again so that measurements are as accurate as possible, the exchange was probably done mid winter.
Michael
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
This is imho a very important question and I could not find any reference to the answer.
How many water molecules is needed for a CO2 molecule to be absorbed?
Why do I think the answer is important?
Well water vapor in the atmosphere goes in two directions. Up through the clouds and eventually into the troposphere and above and MUCH more goes up then down as rain.
Again I call upon my deep ocean sailing experience, the closer you get to land in a prevailing wind stream then the more it rains. In an off shore wind stream the rain is more noticeable just off shore. The onshore wind has to climb up over the air mass over the land so sheds rain. The off shore wind blows over the cooler water and transfers heat to it and has to drop that moisture. In this way CO2 is deposited into the oceans which is one method of maintaining the known reserves held in the oceans.
So what happens to the water vapor that is now carrying a CO2 molecule aloft? Could it be that there is a critical mass that when it is reached at that critical boiling point the water droplet has to shed it’s CO2, and then that CO2 sheds it heat and begins to fall back down. This exchange action cannot happen below the inversion zone but can above it. The water vapor droplet thus deprived of its passenger cannot remain as a droplet and effectively becomes a gas. Turbulence would mix this activity which would cause visible effects which we know happen. Droplets could reform and a dynamic balance achieved, Hot droplets going up, water vapor falling and CO2 generally falling faster than the water vapor.
Ok That is a big ask and a very tentative theory as to what is going on.
It amazes me that there is so little real knowledge about what is happening just a few miles above our heads!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
R.C. Sutcliffe wrote a very honest book (Weather & Climate) as he reviewed most all the different ideas about these topics which existed in 1966. Except, he evidently had not read Volume 1 of The Feynman Lectures On Physics (1962) in which Feynman simply explained with his scattering theory of why clouds were usually white. Without the results of his theory one cannot begin to understand the earth’s radiation balance system.
You sailing experiences are very important. For Einstein stated: “The only source of knowledge is experience,” I am a year plus from 80 and like you have had many experiences during those many years which a thirty year old cannot yet have had.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You wrote: “Again I call upon my deep ocean sailing experience, the closer you get to land in a prevailing wind stream then the more it rains.”
The ‘prevailing wind stream’ suggests you are referring to the somewhat consistent (day & night) ‘trade winds’. And I have read that the range of the diurnal air temperature oscillation is minimal because the temperature of the ocean’s surface is quite constant.
Hence, there are no parcels of colder air to lift any parcels of warmer air.
A question I have long have is: In the middle of a large ocean in the tropics, far from any land, how frequently does it rain?
And its seems that if there are no trade winds, your sail boat becomes becalmed. So, relative to the open ocean you have a great deal of knowledge because of your sailing experiences which only a few others (like you) have had.
So I know I have much to learn from you.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You asked: “How many water molecules is needed for a CO2 molecule to be absorbed?”
Two times I have mentioned ‘condensation nuclei’ in these comments without describing what they might be. And I am only beginning to learn what it is that you do not yet know about. In Part 2 have had Sutcliffe explain why the atmosphere must contain condensed matter (liquid or solid) to capture water molecules so that the troposphere has never been observed to be supersaturated with water molecules.
Here I will only state that ‘condensation nuclei’ are a FIRST PRINCIPLE needed to understand (explain) several fundamental features of the earth’s atmosphere.
I have sent Part 2 to John O’Sullivan for his consideration. A problem of many blog sites is the great number of comments which many postings generate. Which makes it nearly impossible to refer back to what had been stated before.
Meteorology has been stated over and over to be a very complex subject. But Einstein is said to have stated: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Can you image how complex weather would seem if the earth stood still? Which is the result of focusing on the average temperature of day instead focusing upon the diurnal oscillation (the result of the fact that the earth rotates) of the commonly observed air temperature being measured about 1.5m above the earth’s surface, or of the fuel stick temperature being measured about 1 foot above the surface, or the actual temperature of the surface being measured or of the soil temperatures about 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100cm beneath the surface.
I will be patient as I learn what you have learned from your experiences and you must be patient as you may learn something that I have learned from my experiences. There are many related factors that need to be addressed before we can simply explain natural meteorology and natural changing climates. So, to repeat, we both and others need to be patient.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
I crossed the Indian Ocean in a 35′ sail boat once (1996 January to March), Cape Town to Melbourne, 77 days at sea and the answer is; Not often, though cloudy days were just about the same and in the main depended upon what latitude we were at, low thirties to high forties, the skipper was quite mad!
The log of the US research vessel will have records of my scheduled conversations with them as they went South and West and we went East.
The Thomas G Thompson and sailing vessel Wild Flower, I was the cook and radio operator in a crew of three.
The land ocean interface is where the action regarding this sort of rain is where the action is.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
I did not know that, or recent discoveries.
I do not know, but am able to learn, mainly by asking questions and applying the explanation’s to observations.
The Ideal Gas Law seems to have a few holes in it.
In still air/gas the law seems to apply, but, define still air/gas.
The tropo-pause causes the temperature inversion to occur where temperature begins to increase with height, but, the tropo-pause is a dynamic effect it is very variable over long distance and diurnal, it is sometimes variable over short distances.
The heavy side layer has been known about for well over one hundred years so the effects can be seen and experienced at ground level, what is driving the bus?
Electrical storms have been observed causing upward effects to great heights what effects can be explored about these recent discoveries and what part do they play in weather/climate.
Jagged lightening follows a path of least resistance, is this an indication of the variability of the air not obeying the Ideal Gas Laws?
A thunderstorm has violent up and down drafts, does Lightening occur in the down draft regions?
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
“In still air/gas the law seems to apply, but, define still air/gas.”
The only place one can know the 4 variables of the ideal gas law is in a closed container. And we (chemists at least) recognize there is no such thing as an ideal gas. For atoms and molecules have volume while the kinetic-molecular theory of gases assumes they are points like a line has no breadth in Geometry. And it is assume there is no attraction between molecules; only strong repulsions which allows them to bounce off each other with ‘no change of kinetic energy’ (not sure whether the collisions are termed elastic or inelastic and I am too lazy to see which because I consider it unimportant. What is important is there actually is no such thing as an ideal gas because even helium condenses (because of attractions between atoms) to a liquid when cooled to about 4K. And if we ‘pump’ upon it to evaporate it we can lower its temperature down to about 1K. At Cornell University I did ‘magnetic’ experiments at such low temperatures.
When you wrote: “I did not know that, or recent discoveries.”, I have no idea to which of my comments you are referring. Condensation Nuclei?
Relative to the fact that the atmosphere is very hetrogenious (sp?), to know this one only has to study the data of a few atmospheric soundings. Which project was only begun after WWII when the presence of the jet streams, which carried hydrogen balloons from Japan to the continental US became known here. The Japanese knew about them because they observed the high clouds passing rapidly over the island of Japan during the winter. And relative to the jet streams, something you might be directly our attentions to might be the Bernoulli effect. This even if the ‘free’ atmosphere has no defined surface.
You have many good concerns but please lets slow up a bit. Knowing what I consider to know, I have great difficulty deciding what first principle to consider first, second, third, etc. to make a ‘picture’ that appears to be simple.
The lid imposed upon the troposphere by the photochemical reactions occurring in the stratosphere are critically important to an explanation of the critically important jet streams. And I do not know what I am now doing because I not have had anyone to help me as you have been doing and are doing. For so many factors (first principles) need to be laid on the table like pieces of jigsaw puzzle. And if a critical piece is still missing, the effort becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.
So, after stating the previous, keep your impulsive comments coming; knowing that all things are not going to make sense (if you or I lack certain experiences).
Einstein stated: “It’s not that I’m so smart, it just that I stay with problems longer.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
“The heavy side layer has been known about for well over one hundred years”
You need to tell me what the heavy side layer is for I have no clue.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I would like you to explain why ‘the skipper was quite mad!’.
Looked at my globe and see (from the natural ocean currents on it) why he headed to the higher latitudes of the higher forties. For I understand that ocean surface currents must caused by the ‘normal’ prevailing winds. Which are not always normal.
Because of your mention of the US research vessel, I was reminded to the fact that my son, an engineer on a US Coast Guard icebreaker, crossed the equator at least twice as ‘sailed under power’ from Seattle WA to Hobart to Mc Murdo Bay to arrive there a little before Christmas on two different years. So, I need to see if he remembers anything about crossing the Pacific tropics beyond the fact that it was hot and humid.
Thank you for the information and I might contact the U of Washington about the ship’s log. And, of course, I need to ask them what I asked you because I am sure the crossed the tropics at least two times and should have a data record of the weather measurements they had made.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Heavy side layer explained here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennelly–Heaviside_layer
What causes the ‘Ionized’ zone?
The math is rater esoteric and the speed of light gets a mention.
The Tropo-pause is not a stable place it is chaotic in all directions about any one place. The math is not resolvable.
Then there is Gravity which is stated as being 9.78 Gal with some anomalies of +- 0.05 Gal, the anomalies are mapped here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gravity_anomalies_on_Earth.jpg
Do the Jets streams avoid or like these gravitational anomalies?
Does the tropo-pause dip and bulge at these places?
I came across two statements. ‘The Moons gravity causes the tides’ The rather large variation in tide heights are caused by the water’s attempt to get round land masses.
‘The Earth/Moon Barycenter does not effect the Earths gravity.’
The math shows that the center of Gravity moves 2000+ miles around the measured radial center.
In my head this means that if I am 2000 miles closer to the Barycenter I should be experiencing more gravity than when I am 2000 mile further away! The Earth Gravity pulls one wat the Moons the other.
I think the Barycenter is the point around which the Earth Moon rotate.
The radial center of the earth is the point around which the Earth rotates.
Logic tells me that there has to be some forces exerted here that move around.
The radiosonde data millions of buoy’s trillions of data points reveal rather a lot about the behavior of air up to about 35,000′
The statistical errors that are often ignored are significant. I suspect that if dots were produced rather than computer generated average plots then the Curve would be a rather thick line not an elegant somewhat not linear line from ground to 35,000′.
Then there is gravity is the phase of the moon and time of day significant. if a better smoother line is achieved when moon phase data is used then a new small order term could be added to the Ideal Gas Law. (the earths center of gravity wobbles around following the Barycenter of the two bodies.
I followed various links and found two statements that I don’t thing make sense.
The Moon causes the ocean tides.
The shifting Barycenter does not effect gravity of the earth.
WE can observe the gravitational pull of the moon. the oceans bulge slightly as the moon passes directly overhead. The height of the tide is influenced by the shape of the land mass which is preventing this bulge from following the moon.
I think there is a small but measurable effect upon gravity as experienced beneath the moon which can flow the moons phase thus having different effect upon the atmosphere where the obstructions, N/S mountain ranges force the air to deviate.
The GRACE satellite measured the small gravitation anomalies and mapped them. So 9.78 Gal +- 0.05 is the proper unit for gravity to be used at those specific places of increased or decreased Gravity.
We are told the magnetic poles are weakening and moving have these altered these gravitational anomalies?
Do the jets streams have any sort of co-relation and avoid or concentrate around these gravitational anomalies?
look here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gravity_anomalies_on_Earth.jpg
I fear I have raised more questions and not given any answers.
Michael
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
The Barycenter is the center of mass for the Earth-moon unit and is the point which that unit orbits the sun. The orbit of the moon is determined by the center of gravity of the Earth. All orbits are ellipses where there are two center points. A circle is an eclipse where the two points coincide. I do not believe the Barycenter is one of the points of the ellipse in the moon’s orbit.
The phases of the moon are a result sunlight falling on the moon and that does not effect gravity. What does effect tides is the position of the sun and the moon. In a full moon the sun, Earth, and moon are aligned increasing the size of the tides. Tides are not consistent over the Earth and the height of the tides is not a function of the shape of the land. You would expect the highest tides to be directly under the moons orbit but this is not the case. You would expect that there would be two high tides everywhere on Earth but there are locations where there is only one high tide per day. The explanation for the high tide on the side of the Earth opposite the moon is ridiculous. All the vectors point to the center of the Earth so you would expect a low tide. The reasoning that the high tide is caused by deviation from the average is nonsense. Averages don’t exist in reality. The variations in gravity and tides are because gravity is not a function of mass but of energy.
There is a point in the atmosphere where O2 and N2 molecules split into elemental atoms. I do not know if these splits produce ionized atoms creating the ionized zone.
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb,
Now I am really confused. The Severn Bore, a tidal effect in the UK is quite definitely caused by the shape of the coastline and the Severn estuary It only occurs at spring tides and is often a minor wave but sometime quite spectacular. Don’t know why these differences occur.
I have no knowledge of high tides opposite to the moon’s position. Where do they occur?
Tide heights in the oceans are always lower than in costal waters. West coasts seem to have higher tidal ranges than east coasts, Why?
Tidal ranges in Artic and Antarctic regions are very modest, why?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
On the east coast of America high tides and low tides occur twice a day which I believe is the norm. The larger high tide occurs when the moon is overhead while the lower high tide occurs on the opposite of the Earth. I believe it is in one of the Indonesian islands that high tides only occur once a day.
The height of the tides probably has to do with the depth of water and the amount of water that can be affected. The Mediterranean Sea and the Great Lakes experience very modest tides. In a tsunami there is very little change in sea height in the ocean but very ;\large changes in sea levels on coasts.
The tides in the antarctic and arctic are probably modest because the moon is pulling on the water at a greater angle and is not directly overhead.
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Herb says: “Averages don’t exist in reality.”
Herb, as usual, half of your opinions are wrong and the other half are somewhat correct. So the average of your opinions is of little value.
See, averages do exist!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
We (I) must not forget that the title of my essay is ‘How Prehistoric Glaciers Could Have Been Formed. As I learned of the existence of the USA projects to actually measure fundamental data, which, based on my experiences as an experimentalist, cannot be questioned, I focused my essays upon sharing some of this observed evidence with the readers of PSI. But actual data seems to be pretty boring stuff for many people and there was little evidence that many cared. For as I have written, it takes much time and much effort to actually learn.
This essay is my first effort to try to ‘explain’ something, which to my knowledge, no one has tried to explain.
And its importance to me was I have read that the last of these ‘prehistoric’ glaciers melted only 10000 years ago. For I grew up on a farm in eastern South Dakota (about 45 degrees south) where we farmed around the erratic boulders left on the surface when the last glacier finally melted. And I picked smaller stones and rocks every spring that the frost had lifted to the surface during the winter.
I have no knowledge why 10000 years is considered the time that these last prehistoric glaciers melted. However it is a time I can accept much more readily than a million years or a billion years ago and what was going on at the far, far earlier time. And I know that there is evidence that Stonehenge was begun by ‘prehistoric’ people maybe only about 5000 years ago. And its site is now visited by many people each year even though I have yet to read that anyone has noticed that the 56 regularly spaced holes (not points without any breadth) of a near circle are spaced about a English Rod apart. And a fact is 16.5 feet is within a few inches of 5 meters.
So I considered my attempt to explain how the prehistoric glaciers which had carried erratic boulders to the field which my father and I farmed might attract some attention.
For, in my mind, the natural system north of the 45 degrees latitude is a limited system and maybe the weather of the Arctic Ocean surrounded by a snow (ice) wall maybe 10000 feet high (about the highest elevation of the Antarctic continent) would have isolated the weather of this polar region from the weather systems of the lower latitudes. All that seemed needed to form this wall seemed to be an Arctic Ocean that was ice free because it was being heated by volcanic activity at its bottom.
For if it was ice free the ocean’s surface temperature could never be less than about negative 3 degrees Celsius instead of maybe negative 40 degrees Celsius (or lower) of an ice surface. The water molecules evaporating from the warmer liquid surface and diffusing upward had to have begun to condense at some distance above the surface. There the cloud particles could be moved by the centrifugal effect of the rotating atmosphere to lower latitudes over land at which the cloud particles could fall as snow (a very common weather event during the winter).
So, Michael, I am sure you can see how simple (given enough time) it would have been to naturally form a 10000 foot ice wall if there had been an adequate natural heat source to prevent ice from forming on the surface of the Arctic Ocean during the winter as well as during the summer.
Michael. if John (PSI editor) posts Part 2, you can judge if Part 1 and Part 2 were really necessary (or better) than this short comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Thanks for that Jerry.
This quite clearly ties in with plate tectonics, sub tropical jungle plant fossils in Antarctica included. The current plate configuration with Canada Greenland Scandinavia and Russia surrounding the artic ocean would indeed provide for such a circular source of water vapor, hence snow hence a build up of ice which we know existed. From the Ice age records, every 110k years there have been many such events, there would have been many such rock travelers deposited about the place. Is there a way to determine which ice age dropped which rock? Interestingly you mention picking up rocks lifted by frost to the surface, I think smoothly rounded rocks can be aged because they need to be exposed to active erosion for geological time scales. This seems to indicate they were smoothed before they were transported. The few photos I have seen of the Large rocks ( many meter sizes), they have some smooth features but most have quite a few jagged surfaces, weathered on top jagged at the bottom? This would seem to indicate being weathered after they were deposited.
The Heath lands around where I grew up Warwickshire UK has gravel beds containing may types of rock transported by glacial action these identify the end moraines of these long gone glaciers . The gravel beds contain lots of smooth stones and an equal number of jagged gravel. I don’t think there has ever been any attempt to describe the different sources of these immigrants to the UK heathlands and absolutely no deductions as to climatic implications to account for these very different types.
Food for thought.
Michael
Reply
jerry krause
| #
The round stone could have been former stones along the coasts pushed inland.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
What Ocean to the distant north of Dakota ever existed from which they were pushed?
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You are right. The glacier did not begin at the coast of the Arctic. Any glaciers there should be sliding back in to the Arctic.
Michael Clarke
| #
Sorry about the double reference, poor pre-post error proofing.
Michael
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Real Number Math.
Here I claim to be a rather un-educated ‘Expert’, Why I hear you ask, here is a link that offers some information about me and Real Number Math.
http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/resurrection/res84.htm
I ofet see complicated math equations with many terms being used and derived answers being shown with some standard deviation errors quoted.
I am not skilled enough the evaluate these quoted deviations directly as quite often the equations require some understanding of calculus which I last studied when I was nine years old.
OK why bring this up?
I often look at the derivations and values assigned to the terms in these complex math equations. More often than not the derivation leads backwards to some more simple equation, like the Ideal Gas Law. Quite often there are terms derived back long ago that use +- X to place a value upon some term.
Ok lets consider a complex equation with ten or more terms most of which have at their base two or three terms that use the +-.
These +- can be expressed as deviations from some base value.
Standard Deviations Accumulate! they cannot nor should be added and NEVER ignored!
In the link provided the UK tax department were using some very complicated math regarding UK income tax and what if scenarios. The answers the were getting were sometimes not repeatable and the Hardware disagreed with the software routines.
One of the Design flaws in the hardware caused some very minor errors in the bottom most bits of 72 bit binary real numbers.
The effect of these minor errors was HUGE and random!
REAL number math is NEVER 100% accurate when using many calculations especially if +- values are used to do over the math.
Be careful about your results, port the data around several computer engines and test, re-test, ensure the results are repeatable.
Michael
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Somehow I missed this comment until now. And it explains a lot. In the quantitative chemistry that I learned we had a different way of dealing with the uncertainty of our measurements relative to the physics way of recording say 123.45+/- .01. We nearly would write 123.45 knowing that the 5 was uncertain (how uncertain it did not matter)
In the ideal gas law the pressure of a gas is always measured, uncertain quantity and the volume of the gas is always a measured uncertain quantity. 1.0atm would be multiplied by 123.45 liters. And we learned that the product of this multiplication
should be 1.2 x 10^2. For we used a system which we termed significant figures and the result of any calculation could not have an more significant figures that the least number used in multiplying and dividing. 1.0 is a 2 significant figure number and 123.45 is a 5 significant figure number. So the result of the multiplication can only be a 2 significant number. So we learned to not waste time trying to measure something more precisely than another measurement which could not be measured with the same precision (same number of significant figures) if the numbers were to put in an equation in which there was any math operations beyond adding and subtracting.
I suspect, but don’t know, that you are familiar with the periodic table (or the periodic law) of the elements In the periodic table the columns of elements tend to have similar chemical properties. And the elements were assigned a given atomic number even though originally it was not known what the number represented. But before this the ‘average’ atomic weight was measured and it seemed the elements were arranged by increasing sequence of atomic weights. Except there were two elements–Tellurium (at.wt.-127.60) and Iodine (at.wt.-126.9044)
And there were two chemists (one an English and the other a Russian) who at about the same time arranged the known elements in a similar periodic table. Except the the Russian placed Iodine after Tellurium because of their chemical properties and not upon their measured atomic weights. Eventually it was learned that the atomic number was the number of protons in the nucleus of an element’s atoms.
Plus, chemists have never been able to ‘really’ see the atoms and molecules we only imagine.
You and Herb are having a conversation about tides. In to the next to last paragraph of ‘The Principia’ or ‘The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy’, Newton wrote (as translated by Motte): “And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our seas.”
I believe you both need to come to an understanding how Newton could write this knowing that the motions of the seas (tides) were completing different from one place to another nearby place. I do not know what ‘The Severn Bore’ is but I know at end of Bristol Channel the difference between the high and low spring semidiurnal tides can be as great as 40 feet and the difference between high and low are even a little greater at the Bay of Fundy on the west side of the Atlantic. The issues are inertia the phenomenon termed resonance (timing). I don’t have words to explain the principle involved. But if you put a cm of water in bottom of a rectangular cake pan. Gently push one end of the cake pan a ‘ripple’ while begin moving to toward the other end where is will be reflected an beginning back toward the first end. Then, when this reduce ripple reaches the first end, you again give it the same gentle push and a even greater ripple will begin to move toward the other end. In this way after repeated timed gentle pushes you will have create a significant ‘wave’ moving back and forth in your pan.
In the case of the Bay of Fundy and Bristol Channel are the right distance apart for the push of the tidal effect at the Bay of Fundy at the time of ‘rebounding’ tidal wave from the Bristol Channel reaches it.
Newton clearly understood that the land has great influences upon the repetitive impulse of the tidal push. I lack certain communicative talents.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
HiJerry,
I believe that significant number is the number of digits after the decimal point not the total number of digits. One of the reasons for using numbers as times a power of 10 ( 1.200 X 10 ^4 vs 1.2 X 10^4) is to show the accuracy of the number.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
The numbers you show can easily be worked out on paper even if used in moderately complex formulae.
The Numbers the IPCC are using are either exceedingly large, the surface area of the planet, and very small 400 parts per million. The formulae rely in calcus sine and cosine values, the strength of gravity. The ideal Gas Laws.
These disparate values all have either Std Deviation ranges or +- values
The numbers do not lend themselves to paper/white board math so computers are used to do the few million calculations required, this often takes several hours to complete a single pass and computer math is limited by a fixed number of digits unlike the paper or blackboard so errors inevitably creep in.
Consider a really large number 2 n-1 that is to be divided by another number just a smidgen over 1/2 the answer should be twice the input number, but most fix length machines will tell you Overflow or out of range!
There are NO variable length math engines, except on paper or blackboard!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I am slow but I claim to get there.
I did not immediately see the obvious truth of your story to which you linked. You were working with a machine which crunched numbers which machine you understood how it worked. But the machine had a problem.
I ask: Did you use quantitative reasoning or did you use qualitative reasoning to solve its problem?
My answer is you were using qualitative reasoning based on your knowledge of how the machine worked. In the mass of code you ‘imagined’ what could be be problem because there was no way to accurately see the problem.
And Einstein stated: “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” And, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
Alchemists performed the experiments which ultimately forced the conclusion that matter is composed of atoms. They had to imagine the consequences of many, many, tiny, tiny particles which produced the macroscopic evidence that they could see. Hence, you were using the same qualitative reasoning process that these alchemists used and many modern chemists still use.
Yet, when it comes to a scientific topic you seem to ‘naturally’ jump to quantitative reasoning where the exact (precise) number becomes all important. And then one becomes lost in the details instead of trying to understand what is ‘generally’ ‘naturally’ being observed.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You wrote: “There are NO variable length math engines, except on paper or blackboard!” Do you know this is a general scientific law of computer science?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
There have been a few attepmts to arrive at a ‘Good’ way to effect real number math in computers and hand held devices (Pocket Calculators).
It was soon discovered that as soon as the real number is used wwithin such a device there will be ‘Limitations’ These are alsways caerefully defined by the company providing the device. It was also found that to try to remove these limitations then to achieve the same accuracy the amount of digits needed went up at alarming rates. There was an attempt to do this by software in a machine call ‘Atlas’. No one really understood the implications and when tried on large complex numbers the machine soon ran out of storage space. The project was abandoned.
NB similar effects are found when trying to define Pi. On paper the effort becomes never ending. In a computer space to hold the partial result becomes the limiting factor, as does computing time to do the calculations.
So not a Law, just a practical currently impossible thing to achieve.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You wrote: “So not a Law, just a practical currently impossible thing to achieve.”
Newton in his preface wrote (as translated by Motte): “I have in this treatise cultivated mathematics as far as it regards philosophy. The ancients considered mechanics in a twofold respect; as rational, which proceeds accurately by demonstration; and practical. To practical mechanics all the manual arts belong, from which mechanics took its name. But as artificers do not work with perfect accuracy, it comes to pass that mechanics is so distinguished from geometry, that what is perfectly accurate is called geometrical, what is less so mechanical. … for the description of right lines and circles, upon which geometry is founded, belongs to mechanics. Geometry does not teach us to draw these lines, but it requires them to be drawn; for it requires the learner should first be taught to describe these accurately, before he enters upon geometry; then it shows how by there operations problems may be solved.”
Can you by drawing circles and right lines imperfectly divide a circle into 7ths. For it would seem that the prehistoric people who dug 56 regularly spaced holes in a imperfect circle must first have known the operations (steps) required to imperfectly divide a circle into 7ths?
A general scientific law is merely a summary of something that is generally ‘practically’ observed. It, the law, does not explain why this is observed. Hence, Newton wrote that he knew no evidence of the cause of gravity, he only knew the general law of gravity which explained the imperfectly observed “motions of the celestial bodies and of our seas.”
This is fun and it is science.
Have a good day, Jerry
Michael Clarke
| #
I had a test program for which I had the code and the authority to change/modify/ correct.
I soon noticed that this test program was using patterns of bits to test the results against. Most of the tests were trivial 2+2=4 type patterns across the hardware machines range.
Then there were the weird bit patterns and I had to visualize what the test program was testing and how the hardware worked the results out for these weird patterns.
I did not have any sort of formal documentation about the hardware or the software. A recent discovery of ICL TP4999 has plugged that gap and would have been very useful way back in 1976.
So I guess I was switching modes back and forth conceptualizing and then attempting to resolve the displayed erroneous results. I never got lost!
My training as a Logician in the armed forces always grounded me and made me think and re-think the problems through. The code was just a few thousand lines. The hardware was just a few hundred thousand transistors.
It was a very lucrative, but stressful time for me and my family.
What was really hard was there was NO ONE else to confer with.
I had a million pound sterling machine for many hours a day to make it and the software do things properly, repeatedly and with the exact same results.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Until you appeared on the scene, it seems I had NO ONE else to confer with. As everyone else seems to ignore the imperfectly observed data to which I point as they ‘rationally’ reason just as the Greek Philosophers rationally reasoned and got some very fundamental scientific ideas completely wrong because they did not imperfectly observe actual data.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
Back to the start of this conversation and the photo with the black hole at the North Pole.
Just a few observations first. The photo shows some alarming, (to me) gaps, not just at the North Pole, but elsewhere stretching up from the lower latitudes. These are NOT similar in shape or position though there is some discernable structure to them. There is one too regular such region at about 10 o’clock. I thing the people who provided that composite need to be asked how and why?
Ok, Atmosphere movements, Up, Across, Round and Down.
Air at or close to the ground warms, (sometimes it cools!) as it warms it tends to rise. temperature/pressure differences cause disturbance which mixes the Air and can cause significant wind patterns, viz Off- Shore breezes. In general the warmed Air goes UP, as it does that it looses some heat, (How much does it gain? It is after all still in sunlight if it is day time). Sometimes the WV contained in the Air condenses into clouds which then behave collectively rather than independently with their own internal temperature/pressure structures.
These conditions exist to significant altitudes, to well above the tropo-pause. This is significant because of the inversion of the temperature with height so clouds above the tropo-pause need to be considered differently regarding their temperature composition and activity, (Poor word but could not think of a better one).
I know from first hand experience that at around 60 degrees latitude in the Southern Ocean the winds get very strong. What experience I have, told me they were rather constant! Below about 55 degrees, circular eddies form and peel away from this large circulating mass and cause the continual cold fronts that descend into lower latitudes. They are always LOW pressure systems! These systems are what you are describing as air masses created and directed by Coriolis forces, I agree.
In the Northern Hemisphere these patterns are never quite as obvious as in the Southern Hemisphere due to land effects. There is quite a lot of speculation current about shifting jet streams, I have no formed opinion about this phenomena.
When in equatorial latitudes there are the constant Trade winds, much favored by sailors of yore
At the equator there are often Doldrum areas.
Between Trades and those circular travelers from north and south there is irregular mixing called Weather.
I suspect gravity and the moon are involved in this Air Dance.
I can remember WWII airmen being told ‘We are socked in, cloud to 20,000′ no air raids tonight’.
I can remember weather forecasters not all that long ago mentioning ‘Clouds heavy with rain’.
The Atmosphere is a chaotic place, there are some places which behave predictably. WELL most of the time!
Did I miss anything out?
Well the sing in the tail. If large air movement around the planet can cause circular storms to spin off and invade the lower latitudes the same circulation can cause smaller circular spin-off structures above some separation latitude, look carefully at this photo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn%27s_hexagon#/media/File:PIA20513_-_Basking_in_Light.jpg
They are probably much rarer than the circular systems that spin off at about 55 degrees North and South, it follows that they will also be much less strong, I contend that it is such as one of these that got trapped by ices and snow on the landmass went round and round much like Jupiter’s ‘Red Spot’
Hope that makes sense.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Herb,
Hope you are still with us here.
I have a question that you may be able to answer.
It seems from observation that the circum polar satellites follow anything but a circular orbit that has some specific wobble.
I read somewhere that a two body orbit is relatively easy to resolve, but that a three body orbit is impossible to resolve and that is why earth satellites have to carry reaction mass to correct for variations.
Ok here is the question; Do polar satellites orbit the earth’s center of gravity and how much do gravitational anomalies effect those orbits?
Subsidiary question; What part does the moon have in effecting these satellites orbits?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Michael,
I am the wrong person to ask since I have unconventional theories on gravity, magnetism light, and everything else in physics. I have written several articles in the past for PSI where I go into the reasons for my different beliefs but I will try to give you a small synopsis.
Gravity is a function of energy not mass. The only mass units comes from G, the gravitational constant Newton invented, not from data. The universe is made from two things: matter which gives in substance and energy (a thing not a property of an object) that gives it structure. These two components radiate fields, electric for matter and gravity and magnetism for energy (magnetism being a directional force/field that does not decrease as the square of the distance but linearly while gravity is a non directional force/field that decreases as a square of the distance). Since these two fields come from the same source when iron converts the energy field from to a directional force there is a change in the non directional force of gravity. This produces the anomolies in the local gravitational and magnetic fields on the Earth.
An object in orbit is not being pulled towards the center of the Earth, as Newton asserted. An object in orbit is in equilibrium with the energy field. of the central energy source (Earth). If energy is added to an object in orbit it is no longer in equilibrium and moves into a weaker field losing energy to the field and ends up with less energy (velocity) than it had initially. If brakes are applied and the satellite moves into a stronger field it gains energy and ends up going faster. An object in a polar orbit will travel through stronger directional force/field (magnetic) and have different behavior than an object orbiting in a more east/west direction withers less directional field..
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
First, I suggest we wait until John posts (hopefully) Part 2. I thank you for going back to the image but it is getting hard to identify if there are any new comments here when there are so many other comments for other posts that the more recent here will likely not be listed. But if you want to continue to make comments here and will be watching for them. This should be #64.
But I will give you something to consider for later. You wrote: “It is after all still in sunlight if it is day time”. I was operating under the assumption that all images of the composite image had to been made at twilight; otherwise the surface should be seen.
Which creates a critical timing issue.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
That image of a blue polar region with it’s black hole and nicely outlined continents is a construct!
I am fairly sure it is from the Terra polar satellite after reading up on the instruments aboard that satellite. I do not possess the way the specific instrument used actually functions! That data is not in the public domain, but can be deduced by careful examination of that so called ‘photo’.
Terra makes 14 orbits every day, about 100 minutes each. It has been very carefully positioned so that it crosses overhead at any place at exactly the same time of day ON THE EQUATOR twice, daytime and night time say 10 am and 10 pm.
This makes the so called ‘photo’ a composite of at least 7 passes at 100 minute intervals although looking at the way the image is segmented this may be from several DAY time passes with the satellite looking down at different stripes of the planet beneath. That is on the first pass along the Greenwich Meridian it looks to it’s left, second pass it looks down, third pass it looks to it’s right; thus 21 orbits spread over THREE days were needed to produce that composite ‘photo’. This can be seen if you look at a very enlarged ‘Black Hole’. there is however no way to establish any true sequence to the strips of data that produced that ‘photo’. Twilight is very definitely NOT the time of day. any opposite side of that ‘photo’ is about 40 minutes distant time wise and any strip is divorced from it’s neighbor by 24 hours.
I hope this does not make your wonderful work a lot harder to analyze
I have done some work on our circular snow weather, caused by vulcanism and for me it hold water, (sic). Will save that until 23rd October as I have other problems to address tomorrow.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
I said tomorrow but cannot sleep so here it is.
Our star, ‘Sol’, ‘the Sun’ is a variable G star, it’s luminosity/solar output varies. The Earth suffers or blooms as that solar energy waxes and wanes.
Let us consider a time about 1.2 million years ago, the earth was Ice free…..
Then began a series of glacial and warm period about 110m year times scales.
OK lets go back to tectonic plate movement 1 million years ago.
This sets the scene for a surrounded artic ocean to be a major influence upon what was then the Northern Hemisphere land mass. As those land masses moved towards circular polar ocean things got HOT! AND at the same time got COLD!
Hot because all that tectonic movement does that.
Cold because the Sun entered a sleepy phase.
OK so the polar regions get snow which stays around because the sun is sleepy!
Next year more snow!
Then the polar plates react and rebel an throw up HUGE amounts of heat, LOTSA steam!
Just south there are snow fields which promote precipitation. After a very short timescale those snow fields become ice sheets.
NOTE; not glaciers!
That ice is not going anywhere but getting thicker every year!
Please try establish if those ice ages effected northern and Southern hemispheres!!!!!
I suspect that it was and has been a Northern hemisphere event!
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Hi Jerry,
Here is how I de-constructed that ‘Photo’
I made a copy.
I loaded that copy into paint-shop pro and enlarged it as far as it would go.
I printed that enlargement on A3 paper.
I then drew lines across that print-out following the obvios decmarkition lines and across to the other side of the representation.
I saw the anomalies!
I Saw the pattern.
I saw the LIES!
That composite image is and cannot be used as evidence in any scientific paper!
It is a total fabrication designed to do…..
Well I leave it to others to draw those conclusions.
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
satellite overflying a patch of dirt sees a specific swathe that is of a SPHERE.
WELL sort of because the elevation of the ground influences what it sees!
Now I do not know the sensitivity of the space born instruments but it is very easy to point them ‘Right a Lot’ , ‘Right a bit’, ‘Straight down’. ‘Left a bit’ and ‘Left a lot’!!!
This requires minimal adjustment in the Satellite and over five passes over a specific spot gives a good picture.
CAN THIS EVER BE USED AS AN AVERAGE?
It is my considered opinion that we are being LIED to!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
I appreciate very much your talents and efforts. You report what a I consider to be a conspiracy theory. However, it requires that the people involved are as ‘intelligent’ as I consider you are. For which I do not see any evidence that they are even as ‘intelligent’ as I who makes mistake after mistake. The evidence to which I point is that NOAA scientists have created a couple great projects in which they instrumented the natural environment. And this instruments measured very fundamental meteorological factors and recorded them and made this data accessible to me and you and any reader of this. But I have yet to find anyone, but myself, seriously considering this data to better understand the systems that they claim to be studying (or proposing).
It is claimed the Greek Philosophers were very ‘intelligent’ as they rationally reasoned but did not seem to actually try to actually test their ‘thought’ experiments. And it is a matter of the historical record that they got several, very fundamental scientific ideas about the physical world (or universe) world, absolutely wrong.
Hence, I cannot except that people, who make measurements and then appear to totally ignore the measurements actually made, are ‘intelligent’.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Michael Clarke
| #
Jerry, two things of import.
1/. IT IS VERY GOOD TO DISCUSS OUR THOUGHTS AND FINDINGS IN PUBLIC!!!!
This enables other people to verify or disprove ‘evidence’ to support theories.
2/. Here is how I established what I believe to be the truth about that composite image!
I copied it to a one.jpg file. I printed it on A3 paper. I then looked at that one.jpg using standard off the shelf software, (several varieties).
The best seemed to be paint shop pro. I then zoomed in as far as it would go focusing on the south western edge of your black hole. I then printed that new image two.jpg on A3 paper. I then aligned a ruler on the now obvious joins and having identified them I placed the ruler on the un-expanded image and drew lines across the image from extreme left through the pole to the other side.
It did not take long to see a pattern emerge.
Ok with me so far?
I then used some very old software to look at the data that constituted the one.jpg
In other words I looked at the data as a Byte stream. This requires a lot of hard work looking for repeating data items. What I found were individual pixels that went from bottom left to top right, in a dead straight line! IE a construction processes revealed. Relatively simple math gave the start point. Jpg size (a x b) gave me how many bytes into the data to start looking, then rather more complicated math to work out where to look for the next byte of the obvious line that I was following. up and to the right. The individual pixels were there to see, plain as if standing out like standing stones in Stonehenge!
I have re-visited that expanded image and there are 14 lines crossing the pole. The inevitable conclusion is that the image consists of fly-over views of what is beneath the satellite at 14 different times! At least 100 minutes apart!!!!!!!
I suspect that for your purposes it is useless!
NASA needs to explain how they produced that composite image!
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
No, for my purposes it is not useless. But I cannot see what you did see because of your efforts and I have no clue what you saw. You have talent which I do not possess and have had experiences which I have never had. And yes, this public conversation is very important and you need to submit these images which you are looking at to John O’Sullivan so the readers of PSI can see what you see.
Thank you! Thank you! For your efforts to share with us the knowledge you have gained through your unique experiences.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You concluded: “NASA needs to explain how they produced that composite image!”. You just did this. And, if I understand what you have described (with words), it is what I would have expected.
For several reasons I went to the U of Wisconsin (Madison) to have a personal meeting with Verner Suomi, the academic professor who moved the observation of weather to space. I wrote ‘academic professor’ because not all academic professors are not practical. Practical is a very, very important word. As you know because of your experiences.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
Pixels. I understand what a pixel is but I do not know what a pixel actually is. Maybe you can help me.
I consider an important word is: resolution. I see that as the satellite orbits the earth there is a mechanism which points the instrument from ‘side to side’. I see that as this is happening that the instrument is seeing varying areas between the earth and the clouds of the atmosphere are surface of spheres. The smallest area seen when the instrument points directly downward. And I imagine the instrument is rapidly taking ‘still’ photographs of the varying areas. And the smaller the area the greater the resolution of the picture.
What I cannot grasp is how the information seen in these ‘still’ photographs is collected and transmitted. Which problem I cannot even adequately describe. I ask: Is a single ‘still’ photograph transmitted to a computer as a single ‘bit’ of information or is it transmitted as many bits of information?
I believe this question is the best I can do.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
You are right. The image is not a composite of observations made during the twilight period as I have been assuming. For I and Dr Joel Glass have ignored (not seen) the obvious. Which is the image of the ‘scale’ of the polar region’s solar albedo as seen from the satellite. Obviously, to observe this albedo, there must be the presence of solar radiation. Which at the northern Summer Solstice is occurring 24hrs per day withing the Arctic Circle.
You wrote: “The inevitable conclusion is that the image consists of fly-over views of what is beneath the satellite at 14 different times! At least 100 minutes apart!!!!!!!” This information which helps me see what is actually being seen in the Image certainly is not useless. What I and Dr. Glass were assuming is worse than useless. So, thank your for correcting us and the readers of your comments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Michael,
When I copied your comment, I did not copy your last statement: “NASA needs to explain how they produced that composite image!” I did not copy it because NASA did tell us what the image was about and I knew I had not seen that which NASA had clearly told us. I did not copy your last statement because I believed you had just told me what NASA had done.
NASA can do nothing. Individuals (authorities) write what we credit ‘NASA’ as writing. And ‘authorities’ have great difficulties with admitting that they were wrong because it should erode their standing (power) as an ‘authority’. Hence, it is entirely possible that these ‘authorities’ hide their mistakes by manufacturing data (evidence) which supports their wrong ideas. We readily understand that in the present climate, relative to the GHE, AGW, and Climate Change issues, that peons, whose ‘futures’ depend upon the goodwill of the authorities, go along with the wrong ideas of the authorities. Even Galileo had to lie—the Earth stands still—to save his life to fight another day. But he (Galileo) began to write a forbidden book about his simple knowledge (understanding) that he had gained by the mathematics which he applied to his simple observations (experiments). Which I doubt anyone can know about unless they read his entire book, including the preface which the preface that the publisher of the book wrote to the readers of the book.
Any physical scientist, capable of reading the English language, who has not read Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio translation of Galileo’s Italian and disregards the data of NOAA’s two research projects (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html) and (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html) is just as guilty as any authorities who have manufactured data to hide their mistakes.
It is not enough to point to the bad behavior of some and not use this available data (including the information seen in the NASA’s Image 1) to correct mistakes and thereby to better understand weather and climate.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply