Watch the skies and land and oceans

[Mark7]

Wondering if there is any correlation between the seeming increase in global fog reports and the instances of Coronal Mass Ejections or any other type of solar radiation. Asking Chat GPT...

You are an expert in data science, astronomy, and meteorology. Can a correlation between coronal mass ejections or any other electromagnetic radiations from the sun be correlated to fog creation globally?

ChatGPT said:​

Correlating coronal mass ejections (CMEs) or other solar electromagnetic phenomena with fog formation globally is an intriguing idea, but it is a complex and multifaceted question. Here's an analysis based on current knowledge:

---

1.​

Fog primarily forms when air becomes saturated with moisture, leading to the condensation of water vapor into tiny droplets. Key factors include:

• Temperature: Cooling of air near the surface (e.g., radiative cooling at night or advection of warm air over cold surfaces).
• Humidity: High moisture content in the atmosphere.
• Particulate Matter: Aerosols and particles act as condensation nuclei.

2.​

Solar phenomena like CMEs and other solar emissions can impact Earth's atmosphere in several ways:

• Geomagnetic Storms: CMEs can cause geomagnetic disturbances by interacting with Earth's magnetosphere, leading to changes in ionospheric conductivity and geomagnetic field fluctuations.
• Cosmic Ray Modulation: Solar activity influences the flux of galactic cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere. These rays can enhance ionization and potentially contribute to cloud and fog formation via aerosol creation.
• UV Radiation and Ozone: Variations in solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation affect ozone production, which could influence atmospheric heating and cooling rates.

3.​

While the mechanisms above can influence atmospheric dynamics, the connection to fog formation is not direct and would likely involve:

• Indirect Effects on Aerosols: CMEs might alter the production or distribution of aerosols through geomagnetic storms, which could affect condensation nuclei availability for fog formation.
• Regional Temperature and Pressure Effects: Solar-induced changes in atmospheric circulation could influence local conditions conducive to fog, such as radiative cooling or moisture accumulation.

4.​

Studies exploring correlations between solar activity and lower atmospheric phenomena like fog are limited. However:

• Research has shown some correlations between solar activity and cloud cover, which could indirectly affect fog formation.
• A global analysis of fog events against solar activity indices (e.g., sunspot numbers, CME frequency) could help identify patterns.

5.​

• Time Scales: Solar activity varies over short (solar flares) and long (11-year solar cycle) timescales, whereas fog formation is a local and transient phenomenon.
• Data Resolution: High-resolution global data on fog events, aerosols, and solar activity are necessary for robust analysis.
• Confounding Variables: Atmospheric fog dynamics are influenced by myriad factors (e.g., topography, urbanization), complicating isolation of solar activity effects. [...].

ChatGPT seems to think there could be a correlation, but there are a number of confounding variables. FWIW.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Ellipse, and anyone else for whom this may be useful: part of the underlying ethos of this forum is to come to a more objective view of what goes on in our reality. That goal is not served by actively looking for confirmation of things we believe, regardless of how accurate we think out beliefs are (and here I'm talking mainly about the beliefs based on the Cs cosmology, because that is, after all, the source of most of our beliefs).

Instead, we should always and everywhere be looking to DISPROVE our beliefs. NOT because we want to get rid of our beliefs necessarily, but because;

a) we should not ever 'believe too hard' because we must always stay open, and

b) by actively attempting to disprove our beliefs and challenge our tendency towards confirmation bias, we give ourselves a far better chance of being left with whatever real, close-to-objective, evidence there may be to support our beliefs.

So it's whether or not we just 'want to believe' or if instead we want to KNOW.

If we just want to believe, then we'll have a tendency to jump at any and all evidence that tends to confirm our belief, and we'll never know if our belief is true or not.

If we want to know, then we will always question our assumptions, never rely on our first "blink", and always stop and think and question and research and at the very least come up with more than one possible explanation for any given topic. We will, do that extra legwork in advance of posting here on the forum, because in that way we add to the quality of our posts and thereby increase the quality of the body of information on this forum.

This is extremely well put. In response to the bold bit at the end, I would add that it is also helpful, having done that legwork, to include some of it in our posts, even our "blinks". Sometimes our blinks will be good, other times wildly off course, kind of like remote viewing. It's also helpful to everyone to see what the alternative explanations we have considered are, and what is the evidence for and against them. Doing so can also open our thinking processes up to feedback. Sometimes we will miss an alternate explanation, or give too much weight to the conclusion we have reached and the handful of datapoints that support it, even if the supporting evidence is ambivalent, i.e. it can just as easily be incorporated into competing explanations. Sometimes we will be convinced that a piece of evidence suggests one thing and eliminates others, even if it doesn't.

I think when posting our conclusions or "takes" we should also be careful not to present them as sure things. There's always a chance we're wrong, that our reasoning isn't perfect, and that alternate explanations can account for evidence either just as well or better than the one we have come to. It's of little use to stay open, only to then believe too hard in the conclusion we come to and close ourself off from continuing to stay open to new evidence and better interpretations. It might also be the case that the stronger the belief or conviction (in at least some cases), and the stronger we present it as having to be true (and everyone who disagrees is an inferior moron), the weaker it will actually be. There's no need to be right, or to be right right away. It's perfectly acceptable, and probably preferable (IMO), to be uncertain and only consider possibilities or probabilities. And it's not other people's job to prove us wrong, e.g. "I'll be convinced my theory is true until someone convinces me it's not." Better to be aware of the potential weaknesses of whatever conclusions we come to from the beginning.

This leads to one last thing: even if we have done the legwork and come to what we think is a close-to-objective take, it is always good to consider, "What new evidence would cause me to change my mind? Is it possible such evidence exists, and I just don't have access to it at this moment? What if it comes out in a month, a year, or 5 years? Will I have egg on my face?" We never have access to all the data, and even a single piece of new evidence can invalidate something we were certain to be true. By always being open to the idea that there could be evidence disproving our current pet theory, we can avoid holding on too hard and coming to premature conclusions about the way things "must" be.

 

[Wandering Star]

One thing I've noticed over the years is the very high rate of thyroid and respiratory problems. Clearly related to the industrial pollution, though not officially acknowledged (we joke that the local meteorological service is sponsored by the nickel plant!).

Here are the mental illnesses and the rates of attempted and actual suicide.

Something that is also hidden by the authorities and the media.

 

[Joe]

This is extremely well put. In response to the bold bit at the end, I would add that it is also helpful, having done that legwork, to include some of it in our posts, even our "blinks". Sometimes our blinks will be good, other times wildly off course, kind of like remote viewing. It's also helpful to everyone to see what the alternative explanations we have considered are, and what is the evidence for and against them. Doing so can also open our thinking processes up to feedback. Sometimes we will miss an alternate explanation, or give too much weight to the conclusion we have reached and the handful of datapoints that support it, even if the supporting evidence is ambivalent, i.e. it can just as easily be incorporated into competing explanations. Sometimes we will be convinced that a piece of evidence suggests one thing and eliminates others, even if it doesn't.

I think when posting our conclusions or "takes" we should also be careful not to present them as sure things. There's always a chance we're wrong, that our reasoning isn't perfect, and that alternate explanations can account for evidence either just as well or better than the one we have come to. It's of little use to stay open, only to then believe too hard in the conclusion we come to and close ourself off from continuing to stay open to new evidence and better interpretations. It might also be the case that the stronger the belief or conviction (in at least some cases), and the stronger we present it as having to be true (and everyone who disagrees is an inferior moron), the weaker it will actually be. There's no need to be right, or to be right right away. It's perfectly acceptable, and probably preferable (IMO), to be uncertain and only consider possibilities or probabilities. And it's not other people's job to prove us wrong, e.g. "I'll be convinced my theory is true until someone convinces me it's not." Better to be aware of the potential weaknesses of whatever conclusions we come to from the beginning.

This leads to one last thing: even if we have done the legwork and come to what we think is a close-to-objective take, it is always good to consider, "What new evidence would cause me to change my mind? Is it possible such evidence exists, and I just don't have access to it at this moment? What if it comes out in a month, a year, or 5 years? Will I have egg on my face?" We never have access to all the data, and even a single piece of new evidence can invalidate something we were certain to be true. By always being open to the idea that there could be evidence disproving our current pet theory, we can avoid holding on too hard and coming to premature conclusions about the way things "must" be.

All good points to keep in mind and follow, IMO. In a nutshell, it's called 'networking'!