VOLCANO MADNESS

Friday, January 31, 2014

[californiadisasters] Kiler Canyon Drought

Eclectic Arcania experienced the drought first-hand this week:

http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/2014/01/picture-of-day-kiler-canyon-drought.html

--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim

__._,_.___

Be sure to check out our Links Section at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/links Please join our Discussion Group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters_discussion/ for topical but extended discussions started here or for less topical but nonetheless relevant messages.

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[californiadisasters] On This Date In California Weather History (January 31)

2003: It was 97° in Riverside, 96° in Santa Ana and 92° in Escondido, each the highest temperature on record for January.

2002: Temperatures plummeted on 1.30 and on this day.
It was 13° at Shelter Valley, 17° at Campo, 22° at Ramona and 28° at Escondido.
Crops were damaged in northern San Diego County.

1999: Four funnel clouds were reported in the Valley: 2 north of Bakersfield, one near the Fresno Yosemite International Airport and another near Merced.

1995: Fresno recorded 0.01" of precipitation.
This marked the 21st day of the month to record measurable precipitation, a record for any month of the year.

1984: High of 82° in Bakersfield, tied for warmest high ever in the month of January (also on January 16, 1932).

1979: A winter storm that started on 1.30 and ended on this day spread 2"-4" of rainfall in 24 hours over much of coastal Southern California, and 2" of snow in Palm Springs.
On this day snow fell heavily in Palm Springs and eight inches fell at Lancaster.
All major interstates into LA (I-5, I-15, and I-10) were closed.
Snow drifts shut down Interstate 10 on both sides of Palm Springs, isolating the city.
Schools were closed and hundreds of cars were abandoned.
A snow and rain mix was reported in Borrego Springs.
Mt. Laguna received two feet of snow and Julian one foot.
Winds up to 60 mph blew in the San Diego Mountains.
A tornado touched down in Santa Ana, and possibly occurred elsewhere.
Golf ball size hail and widespread snow were also reported during the storm.
4.82" of rain fell in National City, 4.25" in La Mesa, 3.30" at SDSU, and 3.78" in El Cajon.
Flooding occurred along Silver Strand highway, in Fashion Valley, also in Spring Valley, Lemon Grove, Lakeside and Carlsbad.
Lake Hodges overflowed.
Numerous power outages resulted.
2.57" of rain fell in San Diego on this day, the seventh wettest calendar day on record and the wettest January day.
56" of snow fell in Big Bear Lake from this day to 2.2, the greatest storm snowfall on record.
26" fell on this day, the greatest daily snowfall on record for January and the second greatest daily amount on record.
This snowfall also occurred on 2.17.1990.
It snowed 1.5" in Palm Springs, the second greatest daily snowfall on record.
The only other daily measurable snowfall on record was 2" (the greatest daily amount on record) on 1.11.1930.

1979: Significant snow fell in the Kern County desert from the 30th into the 31st.
Total accumulations from this event included 9" at China Lake NAS and Mojave with 8" at Randsburg and 4.5" at Inyokern.

1976: It was 83° at Paso Robles setting a record high for the month.

1969: The morning low at South Lake Tahoe was -13°.

1963: Big Sur received 9.23" of rain -- its greatest one day rainfall.

1938: 30" of snow fell at Tahoe City.

1916: Bridgeport had a morning low temperature of -36°, its all-time record low temperature.

Source: NWS Hanford, Reno, San Francisco/Monterey, & San Diego

--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
Read my blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Re: [Geology2] RE: I'll Promise You the Moon

or to paraphrase, maybe:

we are separated by a common language.

john

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Kim Noyes <kimnoyes@gmail.com> wrote:

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts... for support rather than for illumination." ~ Andrew Lang

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Kim Noyes <kimnoyes@gmail.com> wrote:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com> wrote:

The moon is more complicated than we thought.

Up until a few years ago, everything relating to the creation of the moon seemed pretty much settled.

In 1975, William Hart and Donald Davis put forth the giant impact hypothesis, whereby a planetesimal or larger object caused the earth and the impact object to shed enough material to form a moon. Much of the hypothesis seemed to be confirmed by the Apollo moon rocks.

So, for more than 30 years, everything seemed settled.

But now an article entitled "Impact Theory Gets Whacked" by Daniel Clery in the 11 October 2013 issue of Science, reports that there are unsolvable flaws in the theory.

It seems that the isotopic composition of the moon rocks do not vary from the isotopic composition of rocks from the Earth, whereas all other rocks from space do vary noticeably. The giant impact hypothesis would require a large amount of the unearthlike material from the impact object to be present in the moon rocks. But it's not there.

This controversial information resulted in the first meeting in 15 years devoted to the formation of the moon at the Royal Society of London in September of 2013.

Several alternatives were suggested, but each alternative involved complicated side issues. The article quotes two of the participants: "We don't have a single scenario which stands out because of its simplicity," Canup said. Malosh agreed. "The solutions are contrived; they're not natural," he said. "We want a solution where isotopic similarity is a natural consequence of the model."

Well, if they want isotopic similarity as a natural consequence of the model, then we can give it to them.

When I was first presenting my antipodal impact ideas to the group last spring, Chuck B. disabused me of the notion that I could use simple impact extrusion of material from the mantle at the antipode of an impact for impacts that were of the size of the Chicxulub impact object. The object would have to be much larger.

In the case of the creation of the moon, we have no limitation on the size of the impact object. It can be as big as we need it to be in order to create a moon-sized object through the process of impact extrusion.

Since the moon rock material would be extruded from the mantle, along with some material from the surface, all of the moon rock would be rock from the Earth and none of the moon rock would be from the impact object.

To quote Chuck B.: "The only way the opposite side of the Earth would display near field impulse phenomena, is if the bolide collision were on a planetary scale, enough to overwhelm the dispersive properties of the rock. This would necessarily throw ejecta into orbit to create a satellite and liquify a portion of the planet. The evidence, in the form of a single moon, suggests that this at most only happened once, and it was at a time when the mantle was already mostly liquid."

So it looks like I might get to use my original impact extrusion mechanism on a one-time-only basis after all.

Regards,

Ben Fishler

--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
Read my blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim

--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
Read my blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim

John Atwell Rasmussen, Ph.D., AJP
Rasmussen Gems and Jewelry LLC
"A Time to Stop Living at Work; A Time to Start Working at Living."

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

[californiadisasters] South Ops News & Notes Update (1/30/14-5PM)

Date

Time

News and Notes

01/30/2014

1700

To all ECC’s who may want to know more about the Situation Reporting.

Please join us (OSCC) and SME Charlie Leonard Charlie Leonard, National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) tomorrow ~~Today~~ at 1400 as we are hosting the training session which will be very insightful and explain the how’s and whys of the NEW FAMWEB NIMS compliant 209 report. Email was distributed Should you have any questions please feel free to contact us.

Source: http://gacc.nifc.gov/oscc/predictive/intelligence/news_notes/index.htm

--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
Read my blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

Re: [Geology2] RE: I'll Promise You the Moon

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts... for support rather than for illumination." ~ Andrew Lang

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Kim Noyes <kimnoyes@gmail.com> wrote:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com> wrote:

The moon is more complicated than we thought.

Up until a few years ago, everything relating to the creation of the moon seemed pretty much settled.

In 1975, William Hart and Donald Davis put forth the giant impact hypothesis, whereby a planetesimal or larger object caused the earth and the impact object to shed enough material to form a moon. Much of the hypothesis seemed to be confirmed by the Apollo moon rocks.

So, for more than 30 years, everything seemed settled.

But now an article entitled "Impact Theory Gets Whacked" by Daniel Clery in the 11 October 2013 issue of Science, reports that there are unsolvable flaws in the theory.

It seems that the isotopic composition of the moon rocks do not vary from the isotopic composition of rocks from the Earth, whereas all other rocks from space do vary noticeably. The giant impact hypothesis would require a large amount of the unearthlike material from the impact object to be present in the moon rocks. But it's not there.

This controversial information resulted in the first meeting in 15 years devoted to the formation of the moon at the Royal Society of London in September of 2013.

Several alternatives were suggested, but each alternative involved complicated side issues. The article quotes two of the participants: "We don't have a single scenario which stands out because of its simplicity," Canup said. Malosh agreed. "The solutions are contrived; they're not natural," he said. "We want a solution where isotopic similarity is a natural consequence of the model."

Well, if they want isotopic similarity as a natural consequence of the model, then we can give it to them.

When I was first presenting my antipodal impact ideas to the group last spring, Chuck B. disabused me of the notion that I could use simple impact extrusion of material from the mantle at the antipode of an impact for impacts that were of the size of the Chicxulub impact object. The object would have to be much larger.

In the case of the creation of the moon, we have no limitation on the size of the impact object. It can be as big as we need it to be in order to create a moon-sized object through the process of impact extrusion.

Since the moon rock material would be extruded from the mantle, along with some material from the surface, all of the moon rock would be rock from the Earth and none of the moon rock would be from the impact object.

To quote Chuck B.: "The only way the opposite side of the Earth would display near field impulse phenomena, is if the bolide collision were on a planetary scale, enough to overwhelm the dispersive properties of the rock. This would necessarily throw ejecta into orbit to create a satellite and liquify a portion of the planet. The evidence, in the form of a single moon, suggests that this at most only happened once, and it was at a time when the mantle was already mostly liquid."

So it looks like I might get to use my original impact extrusion mechanism on a one-time-only basis after all.

Regards,

Ben Fishler

--
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/californiadisasters/
Read my blog at http://eclecticarcania.blogspot.com/
My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/derkimster
Linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kim-noyes/9/3a1/2b8
Follow me on Twitter @DisasterKim

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

Re: [Geology2] RE: I'll Promise You the Moon

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ben Fishler <benfishler@yahoo.com> wrote:

The moon is more complicated than we thought.

Up until a few years ago, everything relating to the creation of the moon seemed pretty much settled.

In 1975, William Hart and Donald Davis put forth the giant impact hypothesis, whereby a planetesimal or larger object caused the earth and the impact object to shed enough material to form a moon. Much of the hypothesis seemed to be confirmed by the Apollo moon rocks.

So, for more than 30 years, everything seemed settled.

But now an article entitled "Impact Theory Gets Whacked" by Daniel Clery in the 11 October 2013 issue of Science, reports that there are unsolvable flaws in the theory.

It seems that the isotopic composition of the moon rocks do not vary from the isotopic composition of rocks from the Earth, whereas all other rocks from space do vary noticeably. The giant impact hypothesis would require a large amount of the unearthlike material from the impact object to be present in the moon rocks. But it's not there.

This controversial information resulted in the first meeting in 15 years devoted to the formation of the moon at the Royal Society of London in September of 2013.

Several alternatives were suggested, but each alternative involved complicated side issues. The article quotes two of the participants: "We don't have a single scenario which stands out because of its simplicity," Canup said. Malosh agreed. "The solutions are contrived; they're not natural," he said. "We want a solution where isotopic similarity is a natural consequence of the model."

Well, if they want isotopic similarity as a natural consequence of the model, then we can give it to them.

When I was first presenting my antipodal impact ideas to the group last spring, Chuck B. disabused me of the notion that I could use simple impact extrusion of material from the mantle at the antipode of an impact for impacts that were of the size of the Chicxulub impact object. The object would have to be much larger.

In the case of the creation of the moon, we have no limitation on the size of the impact object. It can be as big as we need it to be in order to create a moon-sized object through the process of impact extrusion.

Since the moon rock material would be extruded from the mantle, along with some material from the surface, all of the moon rock would be rock from the Earth and none of the moon rock would be from the impact object.

To quote Chuck B.: "The only way the opposite side of the Earth would display near field impulse phenomena, is if the bolide collision were on a planetary scale, enough to overwhelm the dispersive properties of the rock. This would necessarily throw ejecta into orbit to create a satellite and liquify a portion of the planet. The evidence, in the form of a single moon, suggests that this at most only happened once, and it was at a time when the mantle was already mostly liquid."

So it looks like I might get to use my original impact extrusion mechanism on a one-time-only basis after all.

Regards,

Ben Fishler