Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2003 Hurricane Forecast

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    1. Volcanic activity. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php 3?topic=volcano As mentioned, SOx emissions drop the phase change
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 29 11:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      1. Volcanic activity.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
      3?topic=volcano

      As mentioned, SOx emissions drop the phase change temperature of
      cirrus clouds. This produces a global, cooling impact and alters EMF
      patterns. Locally, OTOH IMHO, moderate activity can indicate methane
      hydrate instability, and hence strata density changes. Understand
      hydrates are less dense than the ocean water and have to composit
      with heavier sediments to remain fixed at ocean bottom. So when they
      unform that strata where they were becomes relatively more dense
      because what is left is heavier. This in turn squeezes the strata
      and will push lava out a volcano--to put it simply. What is
      interesting, then, is a link, not behind the siesmic and tectonic
      processes overall, but to timing of when there is poor hydrology in
      an area that supports the hydrate stability. IOWs, it hints at this
      a part of a feedback loop. As a clue of hydrate instability, then,
      what this tells me, along with other factors I will discuss, is that
      in places were Mitch moved and struck in 1998 AT THIS TIME OF YEAR
      there are fair weather bio conditions, because there is less EMF
      insulation from the hydrates. This is consistant with the hydro
      electrical dams constructed on the West African rivers, as well as on
      the Orinoco and Amazon. What happens is that sedimentation and flow
      is DELAYED from when storms fill the rivers to when they actually
      will be able to flow out to the oceans what was eroded from these
      storms. The failure of this flow and detritus to reach the oceans
      results in less enhancement of large scale low frequency EMF
      (conductivity is less and insulation less) and cirrus and the infra
      red values decrease for the cirrus lacking. Over time SSTs cool and
      hydrates become less stabile for lack of wieghting down sediments and
      the creation of biogenic methane. So what we see here with the
      volcanic activity in the Carrebian is consistant with all the living
      earth processes I have described--particularly with respect to the
      changes to the Orinoco.

      Now, while the local volcanoes reflect the biological and
      hydrological health of the regions, what is really interesting is
      that worldwide there hasn't been one of those monster volcanoes like
      a Mt. Pinatubo blow. That means the air isn't saturated with SOx
      dropping the phase change temperature of cirrus--and impacting
      tropical storm behavior as a direct result. Therefore, the storms
      produced this year will ALL have a greater tendancy to FLOOD and
      STALL. No buzz saws like Andrew. The much more likely storms by
      character will be like Allison or Mitch, where strong winds are
      higher up and the greatest danger is heavy, sustained rains. An
      Andrew is not possible unless there is a huge volcanic eruption
      between now and when the season commences--and in that case I will
      revise my forecast.

      2. SST analysis.

      Consistant with this poor hydrology in the S. American and W. African
      rivers are SST anomalies that are relatively cool in the Carribean
      and off the coast of West Africa:

      http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.25.2003.gif

      Don't expect this to last. More below.

      3. Fires.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
      3?topic=fire

      Fires will also inform on the Gaia or EMF health of a basin. If fair
      weather to ground conditions dominate, overall there will be drought
      AND increased risk of having any EMF instability be expressed
      with "dry strike" like activity where little moisture is associated
      with it. The fires, again, are near West Africa and the Carribean
      basin--places of the recent dam activity.

      4. Algae blooms.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
      3?img_id=5407

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
      3?img_id=5383

      The most recent blooms--in the South Atlantic, are interesting
      because it is FALL/SUMMER there. IOWs this is not a spring bloom.
      Understand when blooms occur there must have been previous upwelling
      or river nutrients feeding it. This activity results in massively
      and cummulatively the cells containing chemistry that is more
      conductive than if that chemistry had diffused into all of the
      oceans. This activity is further defined in the thermohaline (the
      warm top of the oceans, so that the resulting surface conductivity
      compared to the deeper ocean lack of conductivity (colder salt water
      is less conductive) makes for a relatively better EMF signal
      carrior. It was less of a surprise, then, when with an elevated
      solar EMF event that we had a rare tropical storm in the S.
      Atlantic! It should be noted that hydro projects along the rivers
      that flow from S. America into the southern South Atlantic have
      recently been constructed as well. What you figure, then, is instead
      of more spring based bio feedbacks to the hydrology from the oceans
      there would be, from the delay in bio materials flowing down, more
      increased activity in the "fall". That is, when the rivers should
      dry up and not flow anything down to the oceans they remain flowing
      due to the dams, which means that the algae patch is more likely to
      form later in the year, in the fall, and then cause the bigger EMF
      instabilities -- and a S. Atlantic tropical storm qualifies.

      What that means is this fall when the W. African rivers should be
      less active naturally the dams flow sedimentation and water to the
      biosphere--right during the Cape Verde season, increasing the
      probability for EMF feedbacks to be more severe. This comes in the
      context of relative upwelling of colder, nutrient rich waters because
      in the spring the feedbacks are relatively decreased--cooling the
      surface, as described and observed above in the SST anomalies above.
      Those SSTs are BOTH cold AND have not had significant biological
      activity YET. But biological activity from the upwelling separate
      and apart from the delayed hydrology will occur as well--which means
      the Carrebean and West Africa, the source of Cape Verde EMF, WILL
      become biologically active later when it matters most.

      My view is that we are looking at another 1998 all the way--to
      include a VERY high risk of another Mitch like storm. This is
      further compounded by the very specific risks of increased
      condutivity in the region to include local volcanic activity:

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
      3?img_id=8120

      That by the time tropical storm season hits there will be no impact
      on cirrus phase change temperatures from this volcanic activity but
      that activity will likely add to the sulfur based microbrial
      activity--and, again, increase conductivity related to the
      containment by the biosphere of that chemistry.. Throw in bio
      activity from upwelling, as well as hydrate instability . . . the
      hydrate instability is really interesting here, too. Understand,
      contrary to discussion about runnaway events associated with hydrates
      unforming and then methane going into the air as a green house gas,
      when hydrates unform they quickly dissolve into the oceans. The
      oceans, according to research I have read, can dissolve HUGE
      quantities of methane that has unformed from hydrates--and then the
      biosphere kicks in. Turns out a tremendous amount of life consumes
      methane. Again, more bio activity to increase conductivities by
      containment of conductive ions. A main byproduct of metabolism of
      this methane is . . . CO2.

      Now, with respect to the Gulf of Mexico, algae activity, and the
      conductivity changes associated with it, was a clear factor in last
      years tropical storm season:

      http://www.naplesnews.com/02/08/naples/d819106a.htm

      My view is this activity was associated with the end of the Florida
      drought, which then flowed fire and drought concentrated biological
      materials down the local hydrology to the oceans which then were in a
      sense fertilized toward a bloom. This year, following a year of
      rains, proves to have from Florida less biological material--so it
      isn't a surprise that the West Keys are not the place of blooms so
      far this winter like they were last year:

      http://www.rense.com/general21/gab.htm

      Now, what I can say about last year with this algae patch, and Jay
      (NEXRAD) can confirm, is that there was a tremendous amout of strike
      activity associated with that particular region and what I described
      as Doran waves, or low frequency large scale EMF associated with it--
      again, from what I believe is a substantial increase in relative
      conductivity of the surface waters there. It was based on this
      activity and a hydrologically active Mississippi that I predicted
      that the first TS of the year would stem from this activity and
      landfall between the Mississippi delta and that black algae patch.
      While the first TS of the season didn't technically form until it was
      in the North Atlantic, the EMF and barametric instability began
      exactly there, in the E. GOM, and crossed over Florida. The amount
      of biological activity over the patch of algae isn't trivial, and
      hence not so trivial the EMF conductivity implications--over
      1,000,000 cells of algae are contained in an average liter of this
      patch! That says nothing of the CO2 changes that would occur, and,
      as I have describe, how when there is a "stirring" of these waters
      the carbonate to CO2 electron exchanges for short periods of time
      drop EMF current resistance to almost nothing.

      This year not significant algae patches have formed and it has been a
      year of rains since the the Florida droughts and fires, so that what
      washes down Florida rivers in terms of nutrients for substantial
      microbrial activity has probably decreased. SSTs are warm to the E.
      GOM, so upwelling should be decreased. With EMF conditions at this
      time so poor in the Carribean and West Africa, conditions appear to
      be fairly poor for an early storm forming and landfalling in the
      E.GOM early this year.

      Another interesting historical note. In the previous past two years
      when there have been significant hydrological changes to the
      Missississippi there has been IMHO associated biological instability
      and then EMF instability--giving us tropical storm activity. Those
      years were the year of Camille and last year. In my view, but for
      the incredible EMF instability that occur just before Lili landfell,
      shorting at the eye, as the sun set, with very strong earth directed
      CME and a high proton containing solar wind, Lili would have been all
      of Camille. In short, pure luck it wasn't. Now, what I didn't know
      last year when I made my tropical storm forecast was that the
      Mississippi was going to have this major delta hydrology work done.
      I knew about the very active rains on the Mississippi, but not about
      the work on the river. Hence, I missed the activity in the GOM last
      year. This year I know--and by history what happens the year
      FOLLOWING such changes there is NO activity in the entire basin.
      IOWs, the year following Camille no storms hit the GOM. This year,
      will we likewise see no storms post Lili/Izzy? In step with this
      there has been less spring and winter rain in the Midwest and upper
      Midwest. So the hydrology is going to be average down the
      Mississippi at best. SSTs anomalies are warm to the East and Central
      GOM--which leaves only the areas to the West GOM as a source, say, of
      an Allison like storm early this year. With SSTs cold anomaly off
      the Texas coast and some good regional rains, as well as some snows
      in the mountains, feeding the basin of the Rio, it would appear that
      the W. GOM may be in a good position to have bio activity which is
      conductive and supportive of the EMF required for a tropical storm.

      That said, there is a signal to noise issue that is difficult to
      describe briefly but has to do with conditions becoming so warm in
      the oceans that it is only later in the season that EMF patterns that
      might amplify themselves to a level to produce the tremendous point
      negative voltages in the ionosphere that form what are tropical
      storms is much less likely to occur. IOWs, solar based pulses of
      ions will be directed to the magnetic poles, where the isobars are
      closer, and away from the interfering as more random EMF from
      convection that is more toward the tropics. So, in order to get a
      signal amplified from the poles to the tropics sometimes there can be
      TOO much convection that makes a strong pulse difficult to form until
      later in the year.

      Add to that the gamma ray implications of the moon's position, as
      Steven MacDonald alludes to and it may spell for a later season in
      the GOM--IOWs no early storm even in the Western GOM this year. This
      turns out to be consistant with 1998 as well.

      5. ENSO.

      As you all know, many forecasters use ENSO as a statistical factor in
      determining the activity of the tropical storm season. But these
      statistics have not been good even recently at determining regional
      climate, so why should they be trusted for tropical storms:

      [b]NASA Science News for March 14, 2003[/b]

      [b]The ongoing El Nino climate disturbance has a unusual personality.
      It's weak where it should be strong, warm where it should be cold.
      And now it seems about to end earlier than expected. One word sums it
      up: Quirky.

      FULL STORY at[/b]

      http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/14mar_elnino2002.htm?
      list161332

      When I first was going over these ideas that climate is electrical
      and biological on a climate bb three years ago, I was discussing the
      conductivity of ocean water with New Zealand ship electrician. While
      I have military training in electronics, this was a guy with a
      college education who dealt with EMF/electronics professionally.
      That's what he did. He corrected several things about my
      postulations as they pertained to Lindzen's 'iris' paper. The recent
      MIT's Prof. R. S. Lindzen et al AMS article: "Does the Earth Have an
      Adaptive Infrared Iris?" is available online. Lindzen's paper on iris
      is available at http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-
      abstract&issn=1520-
      0477&volume=082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the
      link "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.

      Before I discuss here Lindzen's paper, I have to say it is a great
      paper of skeptical science and political spin. It's context was well
      known--the Harris et al Nature paper. This helps squarely frame the
      issue on cirrus cloud behavior:

      So I am going to start with THE most respected paper that argues that
      green house gases (GHGs) cause climate change--the Nature Harris et
      al paper.

      [b]Increases in greenhouse forcing from outgiong longwave radiation
      spectra of the Earlth in 1970 and 1997 John E. Harris et a Nature
      (v.410, p.355, 15 March 2001) [/b]

      [i]" . . . broad-band difference signals could occur of aerosol or
      cloud 'contamination' rmains in the notaionally clear fields of view.
      Using availabe aerosol data,24 we have shown that ice cloud,
      paritcularly if composed of small crystals, does exhibit stronger
      absorption in the 800-1,000cm-1 than the the 1,100-1,200 com-1
      window. It is quite possible that small residual amounts of ice cloud
      absorption remian in both sets of data. Owing to the larger field of
      view, the IRIS spectra have a much higher probability of being
      contaminated their IMG counterparts. The observed 1 K or so
      enhancement of the 800-1,000 cm'1 difference signal would be
      consistent with this, and could also arise from change in the mean
      cirrus microphysical properties. We cannot separate these two
      effects, but we do conclude that the observed window difference
      spectra strongly indicate an effect involving residual small ice
      crystal effects, incompletely cleared from the data. R.J.B. has
      performed further calculations, following on earlier work26, which
      confirm that the window difference specta of the magnitude observed
      can easily arise from small changes in the amount, size or shape of
      small ice crystals: these studies also indicate that the difference
      spectrum should be larger belwo 920 cm-1, which is consistent with
      the observed data, especially the global case (Fig.1b). Further work
      on these and other cloud effects in the data will be performed
      separately: for the present, we believe wehave demonstrated a
      sufficient understanding of he observations to give confidnece to the
      principals finds of this work regarding radiative forcing due to CH4,
      CO2, O3 and chlorofluorocarbons. Third, we must also take into
      account inter-annual variability as a possible cause of the observed
      difference spectra. In the window region, the brightness temperature
      difference is strongly modulated by short-term fluxtuations, such as
      inter-annual variablity (specific concern involves teh 1997 warm El
      Nino/Southern Oscilation, ENSO, event). Our studies show that, while
      this could account of an uncertainty of 1 K in the position of the
      zero line in the spatially and temporally averaged differecne spectra
      used, it could not account for the sharp spectral features observed,
      nor the differential window signal just discussed."

      24. Shettle, E.P. in Atmospheric Propagation in the UV, Visible, IR
      and MM-wave Region and Related Systems Aspects 15-1-15-12 (AGARD-CP-
      454, Air Force Geophysics lab., Bedford, Massachusetts, 1990).

      25. Ackerman, S., Smith, W., Spinhirne, J. & Revercomb, H. The 27-8
      October 1986 FIR IFO cirrus cloud study: spectral properties of
      cirrus cloud in the 8-12 um windo., Mon. Wealth. Rev 118 2377-2388
      (1990).

      26. Bantges, R., Russell, & Haigh, J. Cirrus cloud top-of-atmosphere
      radiance spectra in the thermal infrared. J. Quant. Sepctroc. Radiat.
      Transfer 63, 487-498 (1999). [/i]

      See also http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/smoking.htm

      Daly is partially correct--and the third point of Harris is incorrect
      to NOT attribute the change in cirrus behavior to ENSO. Yet again, it
      isn't really SSTs we are talking about--although that is how the
      change in cirrus distribution manefests itself. For it isn't the SSTs
      that force the cirrus but more how the EMFs force the cirrus-- which
      vary the SSTs--despite the fact that warmer SSTs are more conductive.
      But this is the context that Lindzen had as he SELECTED his data to
      the tropical West Pacific during La Nina.

      Since that discussion between the New Zealander and I, Tom Wigley,
      Dennis Hartman et al, Wielicki, have all pretty much destroyed
      Lindzen's extrapolations. BUT, what hasn't occurred is a square
      addressing of the Lindzen DATA. And the problem as I framed it to my
      New Zealand internet friend was that it appeared to me that cirrus
      were being moved and sorted by EMF, and that induction applied. Only
      mechanically I applied it incorrectly. I incorrectly thought that
      the colder the salt water the better it inducted. Wrong. From
      personal experience my friend, Alan is his name, was shocked by new
      found conductivity as barrols of salt water warmed. In short, the
      warmer the oceans the better they conduct. We also straightened out
      the idea that the earth's EMF behavior is oriented so that the south
      pole is actually magnetic north as to application of Fleming's right
      hand rule. I had messed up the rule by using my LEFT hand, and Alan
      corrected me on that, but as we were pondering that error, I recalled
      the south pole/north pole issue (look at how your compass points
      NORTH--your compass is a true bar magnet with magnetic north pointing
      geographically north and since opposits attract--geographical north
      is a magnetic south pole!). Next was the problem of the very very
      small induction that you would measure just based on the earth's EMF.
      Consider this link to an abstract about measurable induction by ocean
      currents:

      http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1992/dbs9201.html

      BUT, what this fails to to see is that lightening strikes will
      present fields that are HUGE in relation to the energies required to
      move tiny ice crystals in the air. How is a pattern of Fleming's
      right hand rule in relation to Lindzen's data shown?

      The next postulation Alan and I went over was the idea that the space
      weather that has been discussed at our yahoo group--the solar wind,
      is actually a very small current, particularly in relation to the
      same strikes that might have enough energy to move the cirrus and
      impact its behavior. Then you get into WHAT excactly IS the earth's
      EMF and double dymino and the mysteries presented by Thomas Barnes.
      The math is enough by itself to ruin a career and turn you into a
      bible thumping young earth creationist. This, fortunately, is where
      my EMF electronics training neatly stepped in, however. It turns out
      that double dymino theory hasn't been varified AND that there is
      another way. That is, what if the earth's EMF were a product of
      strike activity--and strike activity wasn't random in this respect?
      There are numerous examples of this in electronics--by analogy. One
      is feedback--you know, that screaming sound coming out of an amp that
      kills your ears? What if the low current signals from solar winds
      were directed by the close isobars of the magnetic poles and there
      were AMPLIFIED in such a manner that both created the strikes in a
      pattern that made for induction that alters cirrus in such a pattern
      as would be expressed in Lindzen's iris AND would create, by
      induction from top to bottom, the very earth EMF that creates the
      attraction of the solar wind signal in the first place? Thus, the
      magnetic poles would be located, excepting their transient yet
      stabilized behavior from the metal double core of the inner earth,
      near the geographical poles simply because convection patterns as an
      amplification would be a source of noise against the signal. My view
      as scientists come to understand just what I am saying--that this
      will be my greatest discovery.

      The key to the whole thing is biological modulation of the whole
      pattern--because that is where a FINELY tuned relationship between
      the radiation based oscillations of solar activity can be balanced
      against the EMF character of the suns emissions. The fact that
      conductivity is a measure of MORE than just the temperature of the
      conducter, but its movement and chemical content, spells confusion
      for those not understanding the key forcing on the cirrus, nor even
      understanding the patterns meaning electrically, or what from space
      and from convection the power sources are. In short, SSTs are a poor
      correlative device for understanding long range climate to a
      particular region.


      Let me say it this way, because everyone knows my EMF views in
      defining it are contrary to conventional wisdom. As many of you
      know, ENSO was originally defined by fishermen, which therefore gave
      the event not just a SST context but a BIOLOGICAL one. Last WINTER
      was NOT an El Nino from a biological standpoint. The spring and
      summer, and parts of the fall, yes, but not the winter. Where it
      proved to NOT be wholly surpressive of tropical storm activity was
      that there indeed were SOI reversals. IMHO these reversals both
      cause large EMF with a phenomenon known as back EMF, but also the
      wind shifts stir the waters and that impacts conductivity as
      turbulance impacts the chemistry and hence the conductivity of the
      waters. Again, if you have the time, and even bottle of beer and a
      volt meter, you can see how merely measuring conductivity after you
      stir your beer a little causes the resistance to drop remarkably.
      Likewise, a wind reversal is going to produce an opposite induction
      influence on large scale low frequency waves of EMF that move from
      ionosphere to cloud to ground and back relative to the main currents
      in the Pacific, the North and South Equatorials, and the Equatorial.
      This switch causes back EMF at the same time the stirring of waters
      by wind direction change is going to impact conductivities, and sets
      up potential EMF instabilities that can form tropical storms. I am
      not, as you can see, a big fan of the concept of "shear" in
      describing what upper level winds do in relation to making tropical
      storm activity possible during ENSO . . . That is because if SSTs
      and bio and wind conditions exist for a true El Nino, the pattern in
      the Pacific is such that EMF instabilities cannot occur and the upper
      level winds are dominated by the EMF patterns established by the El
      Nino itself.

      Which brings me back to the Harris et al Nature paper. Why was
      comparing the 1970 La Nina and the 1998 El Nino like comparing apples
      and oranges?

      Let's try to roughly describe what the La Nina in 1970 meant from an
      EMF standpoint--how EMF impacted cirrus behavior that winter. It
      meant of course relatively cold waters off the tropical coast of Peru
      and warm waters in the tropical West Pacific. But understand with
      there are three main ocean currents in the tropical Pacific. The
      North and South Equatorial and the Equatorial. Electro mechanically,
      the North and South Equatorials induct electrical currents FOR cirrus
      and the Equatorial inducts AGAINST cirrus by their mechanical
      movements.

      From a biological EMF standpoint, containment of biological material
      makes waters relatively more conductive. So even if waters off the
      coast of Peru are cold, if they contain upwelling of rich nutriants
      that commence a food chain and strong biological material,
      eventually, the conductivity of the waters improves. Indeed,
      fishermen were the first to describe ENSO--which gives the phenomenon
      a biological aspect that in my view has been completely lost by the
      modern, educated, who have constructed the so called Japanese
      definition of ENSO. I make my living with words, and if a
      defnintion doesn't work--neither do I. So that is why I feel that
      this Japanese defintion of El Nino has ultimately been a failure to
      the climate and weather community! It has to WORK!

      And, as I have described here before by simple experiment involving a
      glass of salt water, a volt meter and a microwave oven--the warmer
      salt water is, the greater conductivity or less resistance it has.
      This is what my New Zealand friend Alan taught me--but you can test
      it yourself!

      La Nina conditions off the coast of Peru tends to prevent rainfall to
      South America--so there isn't any shoreline biolgoically based
      conductivities enhanced for improving large scale low frequency EMF
      (Doran waves) activity that enhances cirrus locally, either, or
      biological activity that is shore or hydrate related. Along the
      warmest and largest and most connected expanse of oceans in the
      tropical Pacific, then, induction against cirrus dominates. Fair
      weather and positive voltages to ground dominate, and heat escapes to
      space for lack of cirrus.

      THEREFORE, during a La Nina along the Equatorial currents ambiant
      winds are going to overall produce first very conductive induction
      against cirrus because the waters are anomaly warm to the west, even
      if biologically depleted, and then very inductive waters against
      cirrus in the east because even though the waters become colder--they
      are biologically active such that they contain conductive materials
      near the surface that but for the biological activity would have
      remained more diffused to the colder, non-conductive depths of the
      oceans.

      This, again, leads to dry conditions over the warmest and largest
      expanse of ocean in the world. Fair weather voltages, or positive
      voltages at 250 volts per meter begin to dominate the tropics. This
      clears the air of cirrus.

      The above research is nothing more that data that supports exactly
      this.

      Now, comparing this electrical condition of the 1970 La Nina with the
      1997 El Nino is OF COURSE going to give different cirrus behavior--we
      have the coldest anomaly central Pacific waters to the west--and the
      warmest near the coast of Peru. To the west, induction against cirrus
      along the Equatorial will be reduced simply by temperature--as colder
      anomaly means less conductive anomaly. But then to the central and
      eastern side of the Equatorial the biological activity fed by
      upwelling is reduced. Those waters become biologically inactive. I
      myself observed this on Catalina Island over the Christmas Holiday in
      1997--Catalina Island is off the coast of Los Angeles in Southern
      California. I spoke to glass bottom boat tour guide about the
      stunted kelp and the big fish like yellow tail seen in the region--
      looking for food well far north of their proper range. I saw with my
      own eyes what was reported and this started my quest to understand
      just what was going on. In this situation, the Equatorial is either
      cold or biologically depleted, even if those waters were warm anomaly
      such that one would think that they would induct against cirrus.
      Understand, too, that when you see the warm anomalies off the coast
      of Peru--they are just that--anomalies. The warmest waters overall
      remain in the Western Pacific due to coriolis turning the gyres and
      the warmest surface waters west. This makes induction favoring fair
      weather in the warmest current, the Equatorial, much more difficult
      than during La Nina conditions, simply from a conductivity
      standpoint. There is less fair weather, then, and the voltages of 250
      per meter to ground. The fair weather zone shrinks and places like
      Peru and California are able to produce Doran waves, or low freq
      large scale ion movements that include convective or negative to
      ground voltages. The hydrology varies and further feeds back
      biological EMF conditions of less resistance that enhance the
      condition. Meanwhile, the North and South Equatorials are able to
      enhance large areas of cirrus as they warm. . .

      Right now, if you get a chance to look at just the SSTs (not the
      anomalies) and the SOI you can see a very clear Equatorial current
      and the winds in context and how this current direction inducts
      against cirrus and relatively cools the oceans along that Equatorial
      current compared to the North and South Equatorials--even as they are
      the most centered toward the lumenousity of the sun. This becomes
      very much a medium for wave like behaving EMF pulses to cause wind
      shifts and point instabilities in the ITCZ and favors tropical storm
      development. In short, as you come to understand just exactly WHAT
      ENSO is, you can see that this year will offer no suppression from
      the phenomenon.

      Add to this SSTs off the coast of Panama in the Pacific warm anomaly,
      and therefore very EMF conductive, and it becomes clear that from an
      EMF standpoint, we can expect higher tropical storm activity in
      relation to the Pacific EMF patterns. And the waters are not just
      warm. Given the recent snows and storms in Colorado and Arizona from
      IMHO upwelling and then bio related increases in conductivity, we can
      expect that the path from where extreme SOI based signals of EMF
      travel will be conductive.

      5. NAO.

      The induction patterns from NAO and biological conditions clearly
      favored rain to the NE this winter. The NE has water now, and after
      a drought like it had, the hydrology will favor more storms as this
      material washes out to the microbrial biosphere along the shores.
      That said, because of the dams in the NE and who much less water is
      released especially during the fall and winter, I suspect that again
      the pattern of no landfalling tropical storms further north to the
      northeast continues.

      6. The sun.

      There was a storm during the first peak of the solar cycle called
      Iris that made its way over the dam altered biosphere in the
      Carribean with 145 mph winds with a forward speed at times over 20
      mph--which is really moving. It ended up not being a very large storm
      by area. I bring this up only because it gets back to this bio-tuned
      tension between radiation changes from the sun and EMF changes. As
      the Southern Ocean heats up it becomes more conductive and the
      induction against cirrus there becomes, counterintuitively, more
      strong from an EMF standpoint. So La Nina type conditions ruled then--
      and it reminds me of a guitar string with a real tight string--giving
      you high frequency sound or waves. Mitch was a slow wave--much like a
      real low note.

      Where we have to worry is if the strings break. Mitch is as close as
      it starts to get to that--and without the biosphere modulating -- the
      music ceases. Sun spot or CME or solar wind activity isn't at the
      double peak like last year but isn't at the trough, either. The
      oceans should cool slightly overall from less radiation and solar
      winds amplified. But still we can expect relatively warmer,
      conductive Southern oceans and yet have good pulses of solar activity
      as well. Again, this points to similar EMF conditions more like 1998
      which had solar cycle conditions much like we will have now on the
      other side of the double peaks. In this context I have to bring up
      Antarctica climate research findings. What was shown recently is
      that inside of Antarctica temperatures have actually cooled. At the
      same time, the deeper oceans have warmed there. This is actually a
      consistant result, because as the Southern Ocean warms, induction
      against cirrus becomes more efficient in the circumpolar currents,
      cooling SSTs and the interior. Global satellite readings are
      consistant with this--in that warming is showing to the northern
      hemisphere where the terresphere is larger and it lacks a connected
      west to east current that inducts against cirrus with a warmer
      ocean. That said, there is a control built in. In the region near
      the tip of S. America and the boot of Antarctica there is a small
      counter current gyre, moving the ocean current in the other
      direction. There, temperature anomalies have been over 5 degrees
      Celcius warm anomaly AND huge glaciers, B-21, 22 have broken off.

      I mention this specifically because in the past year there hasn't
      been any major berg breakoff reported, which has caused IMHO further
      conductivity changes in the Southern Oceans. This is one thing 1998
      had that this year does not--major bergs melting in the Southern
      Oceans. This leads to some substantial EMF based uncertainty in my
      comparision to 1998. BUT, because what is most important is
      MODULATION by the biosphere rather than the nature of the chaotic or
      random inputs to the system, the basins analysed will be the ones
      active in this sense.

      7. CO2.

      As you all know, I find CO2 as a green house gas insignificant to
      cirrus clouds as a forcing, and that cirrus are moved by large scale
      low frequency EMFs that the biosphere modulates. I consider CO2 from
      fossil fuels as a source of defects in these biological feedbacks.
      It is THE most important ecological and political issue in the world--
      that's my opinion based on about 5 years of study on the topic. We
      haven't yet seen the worst of it. But we are starting to see some of
      the indications of the problems that lay ahead simply from the idea
      that CO2 increases the acidity of water--and hence varies its
      conductivity. IMHO, this leads to stronger areas of negative
      voltages in the ionosphere, and more profound cirrus behavior.
      Indirectly it impacts weathering rates and the amount of biological
      material in the hydrology. As CO2 is a part of a highly tuned
      biological dynamic, the extreme changes inconductivity that result
      provides a loss of the biosphere's abiltity to modulate its chemistry
      and potentially alters the earth's EMF. In the short term for this
      year, it makes for more flooding and stalling when the storms do come-
      -but more droughts or dry patches as they don't. The real danger is
      when the cold water upwellings stop, and so do the modulations . . .


      8. SHIFTED SEASON.

      Because the dams shift when water and nutrients for biological
      activity rush down the rivers, it also shifts when the tropical storm
      season can occur. This tends to further limit the ability of storms
      to landfall to the NE even if the NAO and biological conditions are
      favorable for landfalls and in the past there have been landfalls.
      IMHO the whole season gets shifted by almost a month, excepting the
      GOM, which actually has matured hydrology changes to its rivers.
      Because of irregation and fertilizers and higher CO2 from fossil
      fuels, if anything, tropical storms may occur earlier in the season
      in the GOM.

      9. 1998

      That year, Bonnie, Goerges, and Mitch were the storms of most concern.

      I have mentioned here SEVERAL times already that based real time
      strike observations this year already, and also based on the river
      changes to the Carolinas (a dam constructed and a lower dam having
      its water level lowered) combined with the end of the drought in the
      NE as well as seeing Florida post drought for 1 year means that what
      is left to continue to wash out biological material and have wind and
      off shore biological activity feeding back conditions, just as the NE
      and extreme SE start to become more fair weather and Gaia passive
      again--would be the Carolinas. Understand there off the coast of the
      Carolinas are some of the largest hydrate fields in the world. This
      year, the Carolinas need to be VERY concerned about tropical storm
      activity. This isn't roll of the die, this is roll of the WEIGHTED
      die.

      Because this is a year that lacks substantial volcanic activity,
      these storms are greatest risks for stalling and flooding, and
      consequently are extremely dangerous for high elevation areas--like
      near coastal mountains in the Carolinas. Of course, river systems
      there should be prepared for the worst. Like the lowered dam there
      in the Carolinas that I recently learned of, I have known for some
      time of coastal sand retaining projects in the Carolinas. What
      impact these projects, which have been ongoing, will have on tropical
      storm activity--I do not know. That is part of the problem with
      having these powerful ideas but lacking the tools that traditional
      meteorology have in super computers and huge data sets and sources.

      A storm like Georges to hit the Carribean islands becomes very
      dangerous, again, to high areas because of the nature of the cirrus
      clouds.

      And, of course, Mitch.

      The pattern of Mitch like storms continue due to the hydrology of W.
      Africa and S. American river dams on the biosphere. This year, say,
      unlike the year of Kevin, there is that post warm event patch of warm
      SSTs off the coast of Panama that will take EMF instabilities in the
      Pacific and connect them more directly to the the storm tracks from
      the Carribean and draw them SW. Very dangerous for these people in
      Central America.

      The biosphere is life on earth to include in particular the
      microbrial life. Did you know that the biosphere under the ground in
      the oceans is as large in mass/volume as the biosphere on the
      terresphere (land)? If you get that in your mind--and make the
      assumption as I do that life modulates its own chemistry and
      temperatures through these EMF conductivity feedbacks to the cirrus
      forcing, you can see how the human changes like putting into the air
      every year 30 gigatons of carbon is going to have an influence on how
      the biosphere works.

      The microbrial biosphere is absolutely HUGE there. 100 years ago, no,
      ten years ago, I doubt people who studied this stuff realized how
      huge the biosphere was as it is known to extend up even 1,000 meters
      or more below the surface and they still find high cell counts of
      methanogens and the like. And understand we are talking about
      modulation of chemistry and temperature that goes back BILLIONS of
      years compared to our little dance in time--of 160 thousand years or
      so. Sixty million years ago we were a little cross between a rat and
      a dino and 600 million years ago, more complex and multi celled
      creatures from the single celled chemically communicating but
      unmoving, "unthinking" microbes of the deeper past.

      Think about this--the sperm is now discovered to make its way to the
      scent of an egg. This little thing isn't even really a cell until it
      combines with the egg and here it has a tail that whips it toward a
      chemical smell--that has a more of a feel of calculations as opposed
      to chemical mechanical. It seems to me that if the microscopic
      subcellular world has adapted ability to calculate and modulate, what
      as the WHOLE earth done, especially if it deals in the same medium,
      electro chemical?

      What is life, what is the biosphere? A good damn question. We
      experiment with the planet before we know.
    • Mike Doran
      There I go. Small mistake. In my head I was thinking whole basin but what I saw from before and recalled was nothing went up the Mississippi again. This year
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 29 9:30 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        There I go. Small mistake. In my head I was thinking whole basin but
        what I saw from before and recalled was nothing went up the
        Mississippi again.

        This year we have two things--the black algae patch is gone and SSTs
        are now warm--meaning no upwelling of bio material. So from an
        EMF/bio standpoint it makes it less likely that there would be
        conductivities sufficient to support a tropical storm other than the
        side of the GOM associated with the Rio, IOW the W. GOM. The area
        certainly can become a fair weather zone and therefore enable TS
        activity around the region . . . and it also may be in some of the
        Dust Bowl years when there was known changes to the Mississippi delta
        lake there was indeed no TS the following year. I will recheck. Sorry
        about that.

        So the question becomes whether there will be conditions for a
        Allison or Bret like storm . . . or not.

        As far as numbers, heavy and shifted, except for the possible W. GOM
        storm. Flooders and stallers due to the lack of SOx emissions from
        volcanic activity dropping the phase change temperatures of cirrus.
        Like 1998 in numbers and shifting. Nothing too far north--with the
        gun on the Carolinas for real. I am more interested in where and why.
        Mechanisms, not statistical analysis.

        Something to think about the year after Camille--and Izzy and Lili.

        There should be no reason from a pure SST dynamic why there wouldn't
        be a TS up the Mississippi the following year. Too much time for the
        thermohaline to "recover". BUT, from a conductivity standpoint a
        hurricane like that will churn up the waters and mix bio material
        throughout the stratified layers of water, including to colder, less
        conductive levels. The bio material on the surface gets covered by
        sediment. Plus whatever might have accummulated in the river got
        washed out from the previous year to have cause the biological
        containment and increased conductivity in the first place is gone.
        What is then left is only conductivity lowered, which will support
        fair weather and less fed back EMF to support cirrus. This further
        decreases the chances for tropical storm activity related to that
        basin.

        This offers a plausable reason why no TS activity runs up the
        Mississippi the following year . . . that has no comperable
        thermodynamic rationale. As I have seen over and over this kind of
        relationship, eventually the probabilities of these tracks or lack of
        tracks occurring by chance become infinate . . .

        Sorry, again, for missing that. I know what I mean but I don't mean
        what I say

        On the "shifting" season, let me be more clear. We see a lot of bell
        shaped probability curves during the TS season--I think it moves
        about three to four weeks later. The 1999 flooding in Caracus was in
        their dry season, in DECEMBER, which killed 30,000. To me this is
        exactly what I am talking about with how the dams shift when,
        electrically, storms are enhanced or not . . .

        --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Doran" <mike@u...>
        wrote:
        > 1. Volcanic activity.
        >
        >
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
        > 3?topic=volcano
        >
        > As mentioned, SOx emissions drop the phase change temperature of
        > cirrus clouds. This produces a global, cooling impact and alters
        EMF
        > patterns. Locally, OTOH IMHO, moderate activity can indicate
        methane
        > hydrate instability, and hence strata density changes. Understand
        > hydrates are less dense than the ocean water and have to composit
        > with heavier sediments to remain fixed at ocean bottom. So when
        they
        > unform that strata where they were becomes relatively more dense
        > because what is left is heavier. This in turn squeezes the strata
        > and will push lava out a volcano--to put it simply. What is
        > interesting, then, is a link, not behind the siesmic and tectonic
        > processes overall, but to timing of when there is poor hydrology in
        > an area that supports the hydrate stability. IOWs, it hints at
        this
        > a part of a feedback loop. As a clue of hydrate instability, then,
        > what this tells me, along with other factors I will discuss, is
        that
        > in places were Mitch moved and struck in 1998 AT THIS TIME OF YEAR
        > there are fair weather bio conditions, because there is less EMF
        > insulation from the hydrates. This is consistant with the hydro
        > electrical dams constructed on the West African rivers, as well as
        on
        > the Orinoco and Amazon. What happens is that sedimentation and
        flow
        > is DELAYED from when storms fill the rivers to when they actually
        > will be able to flow out to the oceans what was eroded from these
        > storms. The failure of this flow and detritus to reach the oceans
        > results in less enhancement of large scale low frequency EMF
        > (conductivity is less and insulation less) and cirrus and the infra
        > red values decrease for the cirrus lacking. Over time SSTs cool
        and
        > hydrates become less stabile for lack of wieghting down sediments
        and
        > the creation of biogenic methane. So what we see here with the
        > volcanic activity in the Carrebian is consistant with all the
        living
        > earth processes I have described--particularly with respect to the
        > changes to the Orinoco.
        >
        > Now, while the local volcanoes reflect the biological and
        > hydrological health of the regions, what is really interesting is
        > that worldwide there hasn't been one of those monster volcanoes
        like
        > a Mt. Pinatubo blow. That means the air isn't saturated with SOx
        > dropping the phase change temperature of cirrus--and impacting
        > tropical storm behavior as a direct result. Therefore, the storms
        > produced this year will ALL have a greater tendancy to FLOOD and
        > STALL. No buzz saws like Andrew. The much more likely storms by
        > character will be like Allison or Mitch, where strong winds are
        > higher up and the greatest danger is heavy, sustained rains. An
        > Andrew is not possible unless there is a huge volcanic eruption
        > between now and when the season commences--and in that case I will
        > revise my forecast.
        >
        > 2. SST analysis.
        >
        > Consistant with this poor hydrology in the S. American and W.
        African
        > rivers are SST anomalies that are relatively cool in the Carribean
        > and off the coast of West Africa:
        >
        > http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.25.2003.gif
        >
        > Don't expect this to last. More below.
        >
        > 3. Fires.
        >
        >
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
        > 3?topic=fire
        >
        > Fires will also inform on the Gaia or EMF health of a basin. If
        fair
        > weather to ground conditions dominate, overall there will be
        drought
        > AND increased risk of having any EMF instability be expressed
        > with "dry strike" like activity where little moisture is associated
        > with it. The fires, again, are near West Africa and the Carribean
        > basin--places of the recent dam activity.
        >
        > 4. Algae blooms.
        >
        >
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
        > 3?img_id=5407
        >
        >
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
        > 3?img_id=5383
        >
        > The most recent blooms--in the South Atlantic, are interesting
        > because it is FALL/SUMMER there. IOWs this is not a spring bloom.
        > Understand when blooms occur there must have been previous
        upwelling
        > or river nutrients feeding it. This activity results in massively
        > and cummulatively the cells containing chemistry that is more
        > conductive than if that chemistry had diffused into all of the
        > oceans. This activity is further defined in the thermohaline (the
        > warm top of the oceans, so that the resulting surface conductivity
        > compared to the deeper ocean lack of conductivity (colder salt
        water
        > is less conductive) makes for a relatively better EMF signal
        > carrior. It was less of a surprise, then, when with an elevated
        > solar EMF event that we had a rare tropical storm in the S.
        > Atlantic! It should be noted that hydro projects along the rivers
        > that flow from S. America into the southern South Atlantic have
        > recently been constructed as well. What you figure, then, is
        instead
        > of more spring based bio feedbacks to the hydrology from the oceans
        > there would be, from the delay in bio materials flowing down, more
        > increased activity in the "fall". That is, when the rivers should
        > dry up and not flow anything down to the oceans they remain flowing
        > due to the dams, which means that the algae patch is more likely to
        > form later in the year, in the fall, and then cause the bigger EMF
        > instabilities -- and a S. Atlantic tropical storm qualifies.
        >
        > What that means is this fall when the W. African rivers should be
        > less active naturally the dams flow sedimentation and water to the
        > biosphere--right during the Cape Verde season, increasing the
        > probability for EMF feedbacks to be more severe. This comes in the
        > context of relative upwelling of colder, nutrient rich waters
        because
        > in the spring the feedbacks are relatively decreased--cooling the
        > surface, as described and observed above in the SST anomalies
        above.
        > Those SSTs are BOTH cold AND have not had significant biological
        > activity YET. But biological activity from the upwelling separate
        > and apart from the delayed hydrology will occur as well--which
        means
        > the Carrebean and West Africa, the source of Cape Verde EMF, WILL
        > become biologically active later when it matters most.
        >
        > My view is that we are looking at another 1998 all the way--to
        > include a VERY high risk of another Mitch like storm. This is
        > further compounded by the very specific risks of increased
        > condutivity in the region to include local volcanic activity:
        >
        >
        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php
        > 3?img_id=8120
        >
        > That by the time tropical storm season hits there will be no
        impact
        > on cirrus phase change temperatures from this volcanic activity but
        > that activity will likely add to the sulfur based microbrial
        > activity--and, again, increase conductivity related to the
        > containment by the biosphere of that chemistry.. Throw in bio
        > activity from upwelling, as well as hydrate instability . . . the
        > hydrate instability is really interesting here, too. Understand,
        > contrary to discussion about runnaway events associated with
        hydrates
        > unforming and then methane going into the air as a green house gas,
        > when hydrates unform they quickly dissolve into the oceans. The
        > oceans, according to research I have read, can dissolve HUGE
        > quantities of methane that has unformed from hydrates--and then the
        > biosphere kicks in. Turns out a tremendous amount of life consumes
        > methane. Again, more bio activity to increase conductivities by
        > containment of conductive ions. A main byproduct of metabolism of
        > this methane is . . . CO2.
        >
        > Now, with respect to the Gulf of Mexico, algae activity, and the
        > conductivity changes associated with it, was a clear factor in last
        > years tropical storm season:
        >
        > http://www.naplesnews.com/02/08/naples/d819106a.htm
        >
        > My view is this activity was associated with the end of the Florida
        > drought, which then flowed fire and drought concentrated biological
        > materials down the local hydrology to the oceans which then were in
        a
        > sense fertilized toward a bloom. This year, following a year of
        > rains, proves to have from Florida less biological material--so it
        > isn't a surprise that the West Keys are not the place of blooms so
        > far this winter like they were last year:
        >
        > http://www.rense.com/general21/gab.htm
        >
        > Now, what I can say about last year with this algae patch, and Jay
        > (NEXRAD) can confirm, is that there was a tremendous amout of
        strike
        > activity associated with that particular region and what I
        described
        > as Doran waves, or low frequency large scale EMF associated with it-
        -
        > again, from what I believe is a substantial increase in relative
        > conductivity of the surface waters there. It was based on this
        > activity and a hydrologically active Mississippi that I predicted
        > that the first TS of the year would stem from this activity and
        > landfall between the Mississippi delta and that black algae patch.
        > While the first TS of the season didn't technically form until it
        was
        > in the North Atlantic, the EMF and barametric instability began
        > exactly there, in the E. GOM, and crossed over Florida. The amount
        > of biological activity over the patch of algae isn't trivial, and
        > hence not so trivial the EMF conductivity implications--over
        > 1,000,000 cells of algae are contained in an average liter of this
        > patch! That says nothing of the CO2 changes that would occur, and,
        > as I have describe, how when there is a "stirring" of these waters
        > the carbonate to CO2 electron exchanges for short periods of time
        > drop EMF current resistance to almost nothing.
        >
        > This year not significant algae patches have formed and it has been
        a
        > year of rains since the the Florida droughts and fires, so that
        what
        > washes down Florida rivers in terms of nutrients for substantial
        > microbrial activity has probably decreased. SSTs are warm to the E.
        > GOM, so upwelling should be decreased. With EMF conditions at this
        > time so poor in the Carribean and West Africa, conditions appear to
        > be fairly poor for an early storm forming and landfalling in the
        > E.GOM early this year.
        >
        > Another interesting historical note. In the previous past two
        years
        > when there have been significant hydrological changes to the
        > Missississippi there has been IMHO associated biological
        instability
        > and then EMF instability--giving us tropical storm activity. Those
        > years were the year of Camille and last year. In my view, but for
        > the incredible EMF instability that occur just before Lili
        landfell,
        > shorting at the eye, as the sun set, with very strong earth
        directed
        > CME and a high proton containing solar wind, Lili would have been
        all
        > of Camille. In short, pure luck it wasn't. Now, what I didn't
        know
        > last year when I made my tropical storm forecast was that the
        > Mississippi was going to have this major delta hydrology work
        done.
        > I knew about the very active rains on the Mississippi, but not
        about
        > the work on the river. Hence, I missed the activity in the GOM
        last
        > year. This year I know--and by history what happens the year
        > FOLLOWING such changes there is NO activity in the entire basin.
        > IOWs, the year following Camille no storms hit the GOM. This year,
        > will we likewise see no storms post Lili/Izzy? In step with this
        > there has been less spring and winter rain in the Midwest and upper
        > Midwest. So the hydrology is going to be average down the
        > Mississippi at best. SSTs anomalies are warm to the East and
        Central
        > GOM--which leaves only the areas to the West GOM as a source, say,
        of
        > an Allison like storm early this year. With SSTs cold anomaly off
        > the Texas coast and some good regional rains, as well as some snows
        > in the mountains, feeding the basin of the Rio, it would appear
        that
        > the W. GOM may be in a good position to have bio activity which is
        > conductive and supportive of the EMF required for a tropical
        storm.
        >
        > That said, there is a signal to noise issue that is difficult to
        > describe briefly but has to do with conditions becoming so warm in
        > the oceans that it is only later in the season that EMF patterns
        that
        > might amplify themselves to a level to produce the tremendous point
        > negative voltages in the ionosphere that form what are tropical
        > storms is much less likely to occur. IOWs, solar based pulses of
        > ions will be directed to the magnetic poles, where the isobars are
        > closer, and away from the interfering as more random EMF from
        > convection that is more toward the tropics. So, in order to get a
        > signal amplified from the poles to the tropics sometimes there can
        be
        > TOO much convection that makes a strong pulse difficult to form
        until
        > later in the year.
        >
        > Add to that the gamma ray implications of the moon's position, as
        > Steven MacDonald alludes to and it may spell for a later season in
        > the GOM--IOWs no early storm even in the Western GOM this year.
        This
        > turns out to be consistant with 1998 as well.
        >
        > 5. ENSO.
        >
        > As you all know, many forecasters use ENSO as a statistical factor
        in
        > determining the activity of the tropical storm season. But these
        > statistics have not been good even recently at determining regional
        > climate, so why should they be trusted for tropical storms:
        >
        > [b]NASA Science News for March 14, 2003[/b]
        >
        > [b]The ongoing El Nino climate disturbance has a unusual
        personality.
        > It's weak where it should be strong, warm where it should be cold.
        > And now it seems about to end earlier than expected. One word sums
        it
        > up: Quirky.
        >
        > FULL STORY at[/b]
        >
        > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/14mar_elnino2002.htm?
        > list161332
        >
        > When I first was going over these ideas that climate is electrical
        > and biological on a climate bb three years ago, I was discussing
        the
        > conductivity of ocean water with New Zealand ship electrician.
        While
        > I have military training in electronics, this was a guy with a
        > college education who dealt with EMF/electronics professionally.
        > That's what he did. He corrected several things about my
        > postulations as they pertained to Lindzen's 'iris' paper. The
        recent
        > MIT's Prof. R. S. Lindzen et al AMS article: "Does the Earth Have
        an
        > Adaptive Infrared Iris?" is available online. Lindzen's paper on
        iris
        > is available at http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-
        > abstract&issn=1520-
        > 0477&volume=082&issue=03&page=0417 for the abstract, and the
        > link "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.
        >
        > Before I discuss here Lindzen's paper, I have to say it is a great
        > paper of skeptical science and political spin. It's context was
        well
        > known--the Harris et al Nature paper. This helps squarely frame
        the
        > issue on cirrus cloud behavior:
        >
        > So I am going to start with THE most respected paper that argues
        that
        > green house gases (GHGs) cause climate change--the Nature Harris et
        > al paper.
        >
        > [b]Increases in greenhouse forcing from outgiong longwave radiation
        > spectra of the Earlth in 1970 and 1997 John E. Harris et a Nature
        > (v.410, p.355, 15 March 2001) [/b]
        >
        > [i]" . . . broad-band difference signals could occur of aerosol or
        > cloud 'contamination' rmains in the notaionally clear fields of
        view.
        > Using availabe aerosol data,24 we have shown that ice cloud,
        > paritcularly if composed of small crystals, does exhibit stronger
        > absorption in the 800-1,000cm-1 than the the 1,100-1,200 com-1
        > window. It is quite possible that small residual amounts of ice
        cloud
        > absorption remian in both sets of data. Owing to the larger field
        of
        > view, the IRIS spectra have a much higher probability of being
        > contaminated their IMG counterparts. The observed 1 K or so
        > enhancement of the 800-1,000 cm'1 difference signal would be
        > consistent with this, and could also arise from change in the mean
        > cirrus microphysical properties. We cannot separate these two
        > effects, but we do conclude that the observed window difference
        > spectra strongly indicate an effect involving residual small ice
        > crystal effects, incompletely cleared from the data. R.J.B. has
        > performed further calculations, following on earlier work26, which
        > confirm that the window difference specta of the magnitude observed
        > can easily arise from small changes in the amount, size or shape of
        > small ice crystals: these studies also indicate that the difference
        > spectrum should be larger belwo 920 cm-1, which is consistent with
        > the observed data, especially the global case (Fig.1b). Further
        work
        > on these and other cloud effects in the data will be performed
        > separately: for the present, we believe wehave demonstrated a
        > sufficient understanding of he observations to give confidnece to
        the
        > principals finds of this work regarding radiative forcing due to
        CH4,
        > CO2, O3 and chlorofluorocarbons. Third, we must also take into
        > account inter-annual variability as a possible cause of the
        observed
        > difference spectra. In the window region, the brightness
        temperature
        > difference is strongly modulated by short-term fluxtuations, such
        as
        > inter-annual variablity (specific concern involves teh 1997 warm El
        > Nino/Southern Oscilation, ENSO, event). Our studies show that,
        while
        > this could account of an uncertainty of 1 K in the position of the
        > zero line in the spatially and temporally averaged differecne
        spectra
        > used, it could not account for the sharp spectral features
        observed,
        > nor the differential window signal just discussed."
        >
        > 24. Shettle, E.P. in Atmospheric Propagation in the UV, Visible, IR
        > and MM-wave Region and Related Systems Aspects 15-1-15-12 (AGARD-CP-

        > 454, Air Force Geophysics lab., Bedford, Massachusetts, 1990).
        >
        > 25. Ackerman, S., Smith, W., Spinhirne, J. & Revercomb, H. The 27-8
        > October 1986 FIR IFO cirrus cloud study: spectral properties of
        > cirrus cloud in the 8-12 um windo., Mon. Wealth. Rev 118 2377-2388
        > (1990).
        >
        > 26. Bantges, R., Russell, & Haigh, J. Cirrus cloud top-of-
        atmosphere
        > radiance spectra in the thermal infrared. J. Quant. Sepctroc.
        Radiat.
        > Transfer 63, 487-498 (1999). [/i]
        >
        > See also http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/smoking.htm
        >
        > Daly is partially correct--and the third point of Harris is
        incorrect
        > to NOT attribute the change in cirrus behavior to ENSO. Yet again,
        it
        > isn't really SSTs we are talking about--although that is how the
        > change in cirrus distribution manefests itself. For it isn't the
        SSTs
        > that force the cirrus but more how the EMFs force the cirrus--
        which
        > vary the SSTs--despite the fact that warmer SSTs are more
        conductive.
        > But this is the context that Lindzen had as he SELECTED his data to
        > the tropical West Pacific during La Nina.
        >
        > Since that discussion between the New Zealander and I, Tom Wigley,
        > Dennis Hartman et al, Wielicki, have all pretty much destroyed
        > Lindzen's extrapolations. BUT, what hasn't occurred is a square
        > addressing of the Lindzen DATA. And the problem as I framed it to
        my
        > New Zealand internet friend was that it appeared to me that cirrus
        > were being moved and sorted by EMF, and that induction applied.
        Only
        > mechanically I applied it incorrectly. I incorrectly thought that
        > the colder the salt water the better it inducted. Wrong. From
        > personal experience my friend, Alan is his name, was shocked by new
        > found conductivity as barrols of salt water warmed. In short, the
        > warmer the oceans the better they conduct. We also straightened
        out
        > the idea that the earth's EMF behavior is oriented so that the
        south
        > pole is actually magnetic north as to application of Fleming's
        right
        > hand rule. I had messed up the rule by using my LEFT hand, and
        Alan
        > corrected me on that, but as we were pondering that error, I
        recalled
        > the south pole/north pole issue (look at how your compass points
        > NORTH--your compass is a true bar magnet with magnetic north
        pointing
        > geographically north and since opposits attract--geographical north
        > is a magnetic south pole!). Next was the problem of the very very
        > small induction that you would measure just based on the earth's
        EMF.
        > Consider this link to an abstract about measurable induction by
        ocean
        > currents:
        >
        > http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/1992/dbs9201.html
        >
        > BUT, what this fails to to see is that lightening strikes will
        > present fields that are HUGE in relation to the energies required
        to
        > move tiny ice crystals in the air. How is a pattern of Fleming's
        > right hand rule in relation to Lindzen's data shown?
        >
        > The next postulation Alan and I went over was the idea that the
        space
        > weather that has been discussed at our yahoo group--the solar wind,
        > is actually a very small current, particularly in relation to the
        > same strikes that might have enough energy to move the cirrus and
        > impact its behavior. Then you get into WHAT excactly IS the
        earth's
        > EMF and double dymino and the mysteries presented by Thomas
        Barnes.
        > The math is enough by itself to ruin a career and turn you into a
        > bible thumping young earth creationist. This, fortunately, is
        where
        > my EMF electronics training neatly stepped in, however. It turns
        out
        > that double dymino theory hasn't been varified AND that there is
        > another way. That is, what if the earth's EMF were a product of
        > strike activity--and strike activity wasn't random in this
        respect?
        > There are numerous examples of this in electronics--by analogy.
        One
        > is feedback--you know, that screaming sound coming out of an amp
        that
        > kills your ears? What if the low current signals from solar winds
        > were directed by the close isobars of the magnetic poles and there
        > were AMPLIFIED in such a manner that both created the strikes in a
        > pattern that made for induction that alters cirrus in such a
        pattern
        > as would be expressed in Lindzen's iris AND would create, by
        > induction from top to bottom, the very earth EMF that creates the
        > attraction of the solar wind signal in the first place? Thus, the
        > magnetic poles would be located, excepting their transient yet
        > stabilized behavior from the metal double core of the inner earth,
        > near the geographical poles simply because convection patterns as
        an
        > amplification would be a source of noise against the signal. My
        view
        > as scientists come to understand just what I am saying--that this
        > will be my greatest discovery.
        >
        > The key to the whole thing is biological modulation of the whole
        > pattern--because that is where a FINELY tuned relationship between
        > the radiation based oscillations of solar activity can be balanced
        > against the EMF character of the suns emissions. The fact that
        > conductivity is a measure of MORE than just the temperature of the
        > conducter, but its movement and chemical content, spells confusion
        > for those not understanding the key forcing on the cirrus, nor even
        > understanding the patterns meaning electrically, or what from space
        > and from convection the power sources are. In short, SSTs are a
        poor
        > correlative device for understanding long range climate to a
        > particular region.
        >
        >
        > Let me say it this way, because everyone knows my EMF views in
        > defining it are contrary to conventional wisdom. As many of you
        > know, ENSO was originally defined by fishermen, which therefore
        gave
        > the event not just a SST context but a BIOLOGICAL one. Last WINTER
        > was NOT an El Nino from a biological standpoint. The spring and
        > summer, and parts of the fall, yes, but not the winter. Where it
        > proved to NOT be wholly surpressive of tropical storm activity was
        > that there indeed were SOI reversals. IMHO these reversals both
        > cause large EMF with a phenomenon known as back EMF, but also the
        > wind shifts stir the waters and that impacts conductivity as
        > turbulance impacts the chemistry and hence the conductivity of the
        > waters. Again, if you have the time, and even bottle of beer and a
        > volt meter, you can see how merely measuring conductivity after you
        > stir your beer a little causes the resistance to drop remarkably.
        > Likewise, a wind reversal is going to produce an opposite induction
        > influence on large scale low frequency waves of EMF that move from
        > ionosphere to cloud to ground and back relative to the main
        currents
        > in the Pacific, the North and South Equatorials, and the
        Equatorial.
        > This switch causes back EMF at the same time the stirring of waters
        > by wind direction change is going to impact conductivities, and
        sets
        > up potential EMF instabilities that can form tropical storms. I am
        > not, as you can see, a big fan of the concept of "shear" in
        > describing what upper level winds do in relation to making tropical
        > storm activity possible during ENSO . . . That is because if SSTs
        > and bio and wind conditions exist for a true El Nino, the pattern
        in
        > the Pacific is such that EMF instabilities cannot occur and the
        upper
        > level winds are dominated by the EMF patterns established by the El
        > Nino itself.
        >
        > Which brings me back to the Harris et al Nature paper. Why was
        > comparing the 1970 La Nina and the 1998 El Nino like comparing
        apples
        > and oranges?
        >
        > Let's try to roughly describe what the La Nina in 1970 meant from
        an
        > EMF standpoint--how EMF impacted cirrus behavior that winter. It
        > meant of course relatively cold waters off the tropical coast of
        Peru
        > and warm waters in the tropical West Pacific. But understand with
        > there are three main ocean currents in the tropical Pacific. The
        > North and South Equatorial and the Equatorial. Electro
        mechanically,
        > the North and South Equatorials induct electrical currents FOR
        cirrus
        > and the Equatorial inducts AGAINST cirrus by their mechanical
        > movements.
        >
        > From a biological EMF standpoint, containment of biological
        material
        > makes waters relatively more conductive. So even if waters off the
        > coast of Peru are cold, if they contain upwelling of rich nutriants
        > that commence a food chain and strong biological material,
        > eventually, the conductivity of the waters improves. Indeed,
        > fishermen were the first to describe ENSO--which gives the
        phenomenon
        > a biological aspect that in my view has been completely lost by the
        > modern, educated, who have constructed the so called Japanese
        > definition of ENSO. I make my living with words, and if a
        > defnintion doesn't work--neither do I. So that is why I feel that
        > this Japanese defintion of El Nino has ultimately been a failure to
        > the climate and weather community! It has to WORK!
        >
        > And, as I have described here before by simple experiment involving
        a
        > glass of salt water, a volt meter and a microwave oven--the warmer
        > salt water is, the greater conductivity or less resistance it has.
        > This is what my New Zealand friend Alan taught me--but you can test
        > it yourself!
        >
        > La Nina conditions off the coast of Peru tends to prevent rainfall
        to
        > South America--so there isn't any shoreline biolgoically based
        > conductivities enhanced for improving large scale low frequency EMF
        > (Doran waves) activity that enhances cirrus locally, either, or
        > biological activity that is shore or hydrate related. Along the
        > warmest and largest and most connected expanse of oceans in the
        > tropical Pacific, then, induction against cirrus dominates. Fair
        > weather and positive voltages to ground dominate, and heat escapes
        to
        > space for lack of cirrus.
        >
        > THEREFORE, during a La Nina along the Equatorial currents ambiant
        > winds are going to overall produce first very conductive induction
        > against cirrus because the waters are anomaly warm to the west,
        even
        > if biologically depleted, and then very inductive waters against
        > cirrus in the east because even though the waters become colder--
        they
        > are biologically active such that they contain conductive materials
        > near the surface that but for the biological activity would have
        > remained more diffused to the colder, non-conductive depths of the
        > oceans.
        >
        > This, again, leads to dry conditions over the warmest and largest
        > expanse of ocean in the world. Fair weather voltages, or positive
        > voltages at 250 volts per meter begin to dominate the tropics. This
        > clears the air of cirrus.
        >
        > The above research is nothing more that data that supports exactly
        > this.
        >
        > Now, comparing this electrical condition of the 1970 La Nina with
        the
        > 1997 El Nino is OF COURSE going to give different cirrus behavior--
        we
        > have the coldest anomaly central Pacific waters to the west--and
        the
        > warmest near the coast of Peru. To the west, induction against
        cirrus
        > along the Equatorial will be reduced simply by temperature--as
        colder
        > anomaly means less conductive anomaly. But then to the central and
        > eastern side of the Equatorial the biological activity fed by
        > upwelling is reduced. Those waters become biologically inactive.
        I
        > myself observed this on Catalina Island over the Christmas Holiday
        in
        > 1997--Catalina Island is off the coast of Los Angeles in Southern
        > California. I spoke to glass bottom boat tour guide about the
        > stunted kelp and the big fish like yellow tail seen in the region--
        > looking for food well far north of their proper range. I saw with
        my
        > own eyes what was reported and this started my quest to understand
        > just what was going on. In this situation, the Equatorial is either
        > cold or biologically depleted, even if those waters were warm
        anomaly
        > such that one would think that they would induct against cirrus.
        > Understand, too, that when you see the warm anomalies off the coast
        > of Peru--they are just that--anomalies. The warmest waters overall
        > remain in the Western Pacific due to coriolis turning the gyres and
        > the warmest surface waters west. This makes induction favoring fair
        > weather in the warmest current, the Equatorial, much more difficult
        > than during La Nina conditions, simply from a conductivity
        > standpoint. There is less fair weather, then, and the voltages of
        250
        > per meter to ground. The fair weather zone shrinks and places like
        > Peru and California are able to produce Doran waves, or low freq
        > large scale ion movements that include convective or negative to
        > ground voltages. The hydrology varies and further feeds back
        > biological EMF conditions of less resistance that enhance the
        > condition. Meanwhile, the North and South Equatorials are able to
        > enhance large areas of cirrus as they warm. . .
        >
        > Right now, if you get a chance to look at just the SSTs (not the
        > anomalies) and the SOI you can see a very clear Equatorial current
        > and the winds in context and how this current direction inducts
        > against cirrus and relatively cools the oceans along that
        Equatorial
        > current compared to the North and South Equatorials--even as they
        are
        > the most centered toward the lumenousity of the sun. This becomes
        > very much a medium for wave like behaving EMF pulses to cause wind
        > shifts and point instabilities in the ITCZ and favors tropical
        storm
        > development. In short, as you come to understand just exactly WHAT
        > ENSO is, you can see that this year will offer no suppression from
        > the phenomenon.
        >
        > Add to this SSTs off the coast of Panama in the Pacific warm
        anomaly,
        > and therefore very EMF conductive, and it becomes clear that from
        an
        > EMF standpoint, we can expect higher tropical storm activity in
        > relation to the Pacific EMF patterns. And the waters are not just
        > warm. Given the recent snows and storms in Colorado and Arizona
        from
        > IMHO upwelling and then bio related increases in conductivity, we
        can
        > expect that the path from where extreme SOI based signals of EMF
        > travel will be conductive.
        >
        > 5. NAO.
        >
        > The induction patterns from NAO and biological conditions clearly
        > favored rain to the NE this winter. The NE has water now, and
        after
        > a drought like it had, the hydrology will favor more storms as this
        > material washes out to the microbrial biosphere along the shores.
        > That said, because of the dams in the NE and who much less water is
        > released especially during the fall and winter, I suspect that
        again
        > the pattern of no landfalling tropical storms further north to the
        > northeast continues.
        >
        > 6. The sun.
        >
        > There was a storm during the first peak of the solar cycle called
        > Iris that made its way over the dam altered biosphere in the
        > Carribean with 145 mph winds with a forward speed at times over 20
        > mph--which is really moving. It ended up not being a very large
        storm
        > by area. I bring this up only because it gets back to this bio-
        tuned
        > tension between radiation changes from the sun and EMF changes. As
        > the Southern Ocean heats up it becomes more conductive and the
        > induction against cirrus there becomes, counterintuitively, more
        > strong from an EMF standpoint. So La Nina type conditions ruled
        then--
        > and it reminds me of a guitar string with a real tight string--
        giving
        > you high frequency sound or waves. Mitch was a slow wave--much like
        a
        > real low note.
        >
        > Where we have to worry is if the strings break. Mitch is as close
        as
        > it starts to get to that--and without the biosphere modulating --
        the
        > music ceases. Sun spot or CME or solar wind activity isn't at the
        > double peak like last year but isn't at the trough, either. The
        > oceans should cool slightly overall from less radiation and solar
        > winds amplified. But still we can expect relatively warmer,
        > conductive Southern oceans and yet have good pulses of solar
        activity
        > as well. Again, this points to similar EMF conditions more like
        1998
        > which had solar cycle conditions much like we will have now on the
        > other side of the double peaks. In this context I have to bring up
        > Antarctica climate research findings. What was shown recently is
        > that inside of Antarctica temperatures have actually cooled. At
        the
        > same time, the deeper oceans have warmed there. This is actually a
        > consistant result, because as the Southern Ocean warms, induction
        > against cirrus becomes more efficient in the circumpolar currents,
        > cooling SSTs and the interior. Global satellite readings are
        > consistant with this--in that warming is showing to the northern
        > hemisphere where the terresphere is larger and it lacks a connected
        > west to east current that inducts against cirrus with a warmer
        > ocean. That said, there is a control built in. In the region near
        > the tip of S. America and the boot of Antarctica there is a small
        > counter current gyre, moving the ocean current in the other
        > direction. There, temperature anomalies have been over 5 degrees
        > Celcius warm anomaly AND huge glaciers, B-21, 22 have broken off.
        >
        > I mention this specifically because in the past year there hasn't
        > been any major berg breakoff reported, which has caused IMHO
        further
        > conductivity changes in the Southern Oceans. This is one thing
        1998
        > had that this year does not--major bergs melting in the Southern
        > Oceans. This leads to some substantial EMF based uncertainty in my
        > comparision to 1998. BUT, because what is most important is
        > MODULATION by the biosphere rather than the nature of the chaotic
        or
        > random inputs to the system, the basins analysed will be the ones
        > active in this sense.
        >
        > 7. CO2.
        >
        > As you all know, I find CO2 as a green house gas insignificant to
        > cirrus clouds as a forcing, and that cirrus are moved by large
        scale
        > low frequency EMFs that the biosphere modulates. I consider CO2
        from
        > fossil fuels as a source of defects in these biological feedbacks.
        > It is THE most important ecological and political issue in the
        world--
        > that's my opinion based on about 5 years of study on the topic. We
        > haven't yet seen the worst of it. But we are starting to see some
        of
        > the indications of the problems that lay ahead simply from the idea
        > that CO2 increases the acidity of water--and hence varies its
        > conductivity. IMHO, this leads to stronger areas of negative
        > voltages in the ionosphere, and more profound cirrus behavior.
        > Indirectly it impacts weathering rates and the amount of biological
        > material in the hydrology. As CO2 is a part of a highly tuned
        > biological dynamic, the extreme changes inconductivity that result
        > provides a loss of the biosphere's abiltity to modulate its
        chemistry
        > and potentially alters the earth's EMF. In the short term for this
        > year, it makes for more flooding and stalling when the storms do
        come-
        > -but more droughts or dry patches as they don't. The real danger
        is
        > when the cold water upwellings stop, and so do the
        modulations . . .
        >
        >
        > 8. SHIFTED SEASON.
        >
        > Because the dams shift when water and nutrients for biological
        > activity rush down the rivers, it also shifts when the tropical
        storm
        > season can occur. This tends to further limit the ability of
        storms
        > to landfall to the NE even if the NAO and biological conditions are
        > favorable for landfalls and in the past there have been landfalls.
        > IMHO the whole season gets shifted by almost a month, excepting the
        > GOM, which actually has matured hydrology changes to its rivers.
        > Because of irregation and fertilizers and higher CO2 from fossil
        > fuels, if anything, tropical storms may occur earlier in the season
        > in the GOM.
        >
        > 9. 1998
        >
        > That year, Bonnie, Goerges, and Mitch were the storms of most
        concern.
        >
        > I have mentioned here SEVERAL times already that based real time
        > strike observations this year already, and also based on the river
        > changes to the Carolinas (a dam constructed and a lower dam having
        > its water level lowered) combined with the end of the drought in
        the
        > NE as well as seeing Florida post drought for 1 year means that
        what
        > is left to continue to wash out biological material and have wind
        and
        > off shore biological activity feeding back conditions, just as the
        NE
        > and extreme SE start to become more fair weather and Gaia passive
        > again--would be the Carolinas. Understand there off the coast of
        the
        > Carolinas are some of the largest hydrate fields in the world.
        This
        > year, the Carolinas need to be VERY concerned about tropical storm
        > activity. This isn't roll of the die, this is roll of the WEIGHTED
        > die.
        >
        > Because this is a year that lacks substantial volcanic activity,
        > these storms are greatest risks for stalling and flooding, and
        > consequently are extremely dangerous for high elevation areas--like
        > near coastal mountains in the Carolinas. Of course, river systems
        > there should be prepared for the worst. Like the lowered dam
        there
        > in the Carolinas that I recently learned of, I have known for some
        > time of coastal sand retaining projects in the Carolinas. What
        > impact these projects, which have been ongoing, will have on
        tropical
        > storm activity--I do not know. That is part of the problem with
        > having these powerful ideas but lacking the tools that traditional
        > meteorology have in super computers and huge data sets and sources.
        >
        > A storm like Georges to hit the Carribean islands becomes very
        > dangerous, again, to high areas because of the nature of the cirrus
        > clouds.
        >
        > And, of course, Mitch.
        >
        > The pattern of Mitch like storms continue due to the hydrology of
        W.
        > Africa and S. American river dams on the biosphere. This year, say,
        > unlike the year of Kevin, there is that post warm event patch of
        warm
        > SSTs off the coast of Panama that will take EMF instabilities in
        the
        > Pacific and connect them more directly to the the storm tracks from
        > the Carribean and draw them SW. Very dangerous for these people in
        > Central America.
        >
        > The biosphere is life on earth to include in particular the
        > microbrial life. Did you know that the biosphere under the ground
        in
        > the oceans is as large in mass/volume as the biosphere on the
        > terresphere (land)? If you get that in your mind--and make the
        > assumption as I do that life modulates its own chemistry and
        > temperatures through these EMF conductivity feedbacks to the cirrus
        > forcing, you can see how the human changes like putting into the
        air
        > every year 30 gigatons of carbon is going to have an influence on
        how
        > the biosphere works.
        >
        > The microbrial biosphere is absolutely HUGE there. 100 years ago,
        no,
        > ten years ago, I doubt people who studied this stuff realized how
        > huge the biosphere was as it is known to extend up even 1,000
        meters
        > or more below the surface and they still find high cell counts of
        > methanogens and the like. And understand we are talking about
        > modulation of chemistry and temperature that goes back BILLIONS of
        > years compared to our little dance in time--of 160 thousand years
        or
        > so. Sixty million years ago we were a little cross between a rat
        and
        > a dino and 600 million years ago, more complex and multi celled
        > creatures from the single celled chemically communicating but
        > unmoving, "unthinking" microbes of the deeper past.
        >
        > Think about this--the sperm is now discovered to make its way to
        the
        > scent of an egg. This little thing isn't even really a cell until
        it
        > combines with the egg and here it has a tail that whips it toward a
        > chemical smell--that has a more of a feel of calculations as
        opposed
        > to chemical mechanical. It seems to me that if the microscopic
        > subcellular world has adapted ability to calculate and modulate,
        what
        > as the WHOLE earth done, especially if it deals in the same medium,
        > electro chemical?
        >
        > What is life, what is the biosphere? A good damn question. We
        > experiment with the planet before we know.
      • David
        Now that was impressive, Mike. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into that. Time will tell if you re right!
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 30 8:53 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Now that was impressive, Mike. You obviously put a lot of time and
          effort into that. Time will tell if you're right!
        • David
          ... True. One thing to be aware of is that a sunspot cycle will typically ramp up faster than it declines. The low point actually comes a little more than
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 31 8:30 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            > Sun spot or CME or solar wind activity isn't at the
            > double peak like last year but isn't at the trough, either.

            True. One thing to be aware of is that a sunspot cycle will typically
            ramp up faster than it declines. The low point actually comes a
            little more than halfway through the 11 year time period. Instead of
            a classic bell-shaped curve, it's more of a lopsided bell, with the
            right side being a little elongated.

            > This
            > year, the Carolinas need to be VERY concerned about tropical storm
            > activity. This isn't roll of the die, this is roll of the WEIGHTED
            > die.
            >

            Oh peachy. Just what I wanted to hear. We've had some flooding in
            the Carolinas this spring already. I remember all to well the
            horrible flooding in the eastern Carolinas a few years ago when we got
            hit with two tropical systems within a period of a about 3 or 4 weeks,
            one of which decided it liked the scenery and decided to hang around
            for a few days. I didn't get any flooding myself, but many people
            did, especially in eastern NC. It was devastating. No offense, my
            friend, but I sure hope you're wrong about this one.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.