Mid Season Gaia tropical storm report
- View Sourcehttp://stormsfury1.com/Temp/HeatContent.png
Hurricane Heat Potential Map from August 13th, 2003 - surprisingly
low along the path of Erika.
This heat map touches on something I have been trying to explain to
everyone here, over and over, with great difficulty.
Tropical storms are UNcoupled thermally, by SSTs. Otherwise anytime
there is warm SSTs, you would have a hurricane/tropical storm, but
that is not the case.
Yet SSTs have to be at a certain level, it would seem, for them to
form. So there seems to be a correlation between SSTs and activity.
Turns out, tropical storms ARE coupled ELECTRICALLY. And
electrically, conductivity increases with the temperature of the salt
water. You can prove this yourself with a microwave and a voltmeter.
Get a cup of water and add salt. Test for resistance (conductivity is
the inverse), then put in microwave. Retest. Note that resistance
drops with temperature.
Same thing is going on here EXCEPT that there is the biosphere to
consider. This is where the uncoupling occurs.
Colder waters, caused by the moon gravity wave that triggered Bill,
caused an upwelling and nutrients for a bio bloom. Conductivities,
then, become counterintuitively better along the relatively colder
I should also mention that relatively colder SSTs will cause a
sharper surface wind bite at the waters, stirring them. The stir
shakes out the CO2, and causes gas exchange from carbonic acid to CO2
gas, freeing electrons, and further increasing the conductivities.
Biological activity further increases the amount of CO2 in the water
for this to occur. This goes back to the Bates et al Nature research
on Hurricane Felix and pp of CO2 on pass by. This is a VERY
Erika IR 20 hour loop of landfall.
The strike data, which you get real time here--
that I was watching as Erika landfell real time showed that at night
Erika blew up with the nighttime when the monsoonal storms in the 4
corners states ended. That is when electrically, the storm began to
become more centered electrically, because it wasn't being distorted
by external electrical factors, namely thunderstorms along the east
coast and over the four corner states. Those storms helped create
the storm, but not organize it.. The strikes were very active during
the day, and this can feed the storm, just not in an organized way.
The visible eye formed just before it came ashore.
The interaction with land is interesting electrically, too. This can
also be a source of a "blow up". But don't forget that the Rio is
right there. I notice the only place near landfall where there was
strikes was in the delta region.
North of the Great Lakes, in the early loops, there was a
thunderstorm that moved rapidly from west to east. I found that storm
interesting electrically, because the north EMF is just north of that
storm, and there was an elevated solar wind. That means that along
the isobars of the pole the low voltages of the wind can come down
and cause a pattern enhancement, which then results in clouds that
feedback more charger separations. You then had what I call Doran
waves, or large scale low freq ion movements of foul to fair weather,
where fair weather brings positive voltages to ground and foul
negative. You can see how strong a Doran wave that Ericka produces
two ways. First, just before landfall notice how she has turned a
path north of her fair weather. You may say, well, that's the trough
and the cold air behind it--but also look at how the GOC goes fair
and then to the east of the storm, across Florida, and then northeast
along the Gulf Stream along the warm, conductive paths of the Gulf
Stream--it goes fair weather.
But the biggest clue how incredibly powerful the negative voltages
over the eye are is when it landfell. What I want everyone to
understand is that fair weather voltages are about 250 volts per
meter POSITIVE and I make the backwards connection that clouds going
away is CAUSED by positive voltages to ground.
So, we know, emperically, from the NASA research on Felix, that the
HUGE negative voltages over the eye in the ionosphere are there.
That's a given. But where do these charges go on landfall and why?
I will tell you that the storm becomes EMF disorganized and
extratropical looking and behaving.
Then come strikes to ground--shorting of a the capacitive coupling,
if you will. And that causes incredibly strong positive to ground
reactions on the terresphere. So please, if you are going to do ONE
thing, call me crazy, say all I talk about is strikes and Steve is
loony luner, whatever your narrow, stupid view is, please look at
this one thing. Notice how the whole of the United States that is
fair weather goes REALLY fair weather on that loop. That is because
cloud nucleation processes in positive voltages to ground conditions
strongly favor evaporation off particles, which leads to phase
energies taken from the air, and cirrus are pushed to the ground, and
that together reduces heat trapping and convection. The air contains
Again, it goes back to the dielectric differences between water and
air. Water has a dielectric about 80 times greater than air. That
means that an alternating current cannot pass well through a cloud
region, so here you have convective regions separating charges,
putting them up to the ionosphere, BUT no way of bring those positive
charges through the strong dielectric--so those ions are forced to
move to fair weather zones--which decreases cloud formations. In the
case of a point negative ionospheric ion concentration over marine
zones (a tropical storm), the separated charges have a chance to hang
on--by positive voltages being attracted to that negative center.
Now, because a tropical storm is COUPLED to the ocean surface, that
negative voltage makes the eye area POSITIVELY charged, and clears
the area of convective potential, and it becomes cloud free and a low
pressure--a paradox of mechanical, thermodynamic and electrical .
BUT, the cloud free feature is exactly that which prevents strikes,
because air is resistive to direct currents, and having cloudless
conditions over the eye prevents that negative voltage from running
New research on hurricanes has also shown that the charge
separations, once they do occur in the cloud covered regions, occurs
too high for a strike to go to ground. IMHO, there is more to this.
When the ionosphere is very strongly positive and the dielectric
values of the heavy water laden air won't let this electrical pulse
move downwards, and the negitive concentration over the eye won't let
the relatively positive ions escape, the cirrus clouds are
electrically lifted, and heat is trapped even more than usual, and
the cloud levels rise. As they rise, the distance between ocean and
cloud increases, and so does the resistance levels for direct
currents. Further, there isn't any relative instability from above to
cause a negative surge below in a concentrated manner--again, due to
the dielectric values. Further, that negative value over the eye
couples to the ocean surface, drawing in extremely positive voltages
to a center and hence negative voltages around that center. This
makes for further inability for a negative voltages to come to the
ocean from near the center of the storm.
Now, when the TS runs ashore, the capacitive coupling is lost. Shorts
to ground begin to occur from the center. The cirrus lose their
enhancement, and soon they are no longer trapping infra red heat.
After a very short time, the storm weakens. What you saw there on
those loops is when it came ashore the HUGE negative voltages over
the eye shorted down to ground and caused most of the fair weather
regions to REALLY dry out.
Only an electrical process could do that. Only thing. Pressures and
heat move WAY to slow to cause this to occur at the same time. ONLY
something moving at the speed of light, like EMFs, could cause such a
shift in water vapor.
Here is link to a discussion I rehashed (talking to myself, somewhat)
over Steve MacDonalds's studies of tropical storm Bill that we had a
couple of months ago. Sadly, some of the pictures linked by Steve
over the cloud behavior/gravitational wave are no longer on his site.
What the pictures showed is a vapor circle, a storm really, that
followed the path of a gravity wave of the moon as it went from south
of the Hawaiian Islands, across Baja California, the GOC, across
Mexico, and then split the GOM in half. As the gravity entered the
GOM, Bill formed just north of the line split by the gravity wave. In
any event, the moon passed in pretty much a line that equates to the
path of Erika. The probability of this occurring by chance is pretty
Now Steve tells us he has a drought model based on moon gravity wave
movements on a scale of years. This doesn't surprise me. Nor does the
Keeling Whorf research on longer timescales:
The gravitational wave causes an electrical pattern that then
backfeeds tracking patterns even over periods. My view is that the
LIA actually is about how the patterns of the moon orbit can cause
patterns of conductivity that favors better heat retention patterns,
better signal cloud ratios.
All along, of course, the modulation by the biosphere is its lone
weapon against chaotic changes brought about by things like the
moon's gravity waves.
This gets back to a very good question about the track of the
Claudette, that I picked real time to move further north. I think I
have the answer now. Despite the gaia poor conditions in the GOC and
even the western GOM, the moon gravity wave left a conductivity path
from Pacific to Atlantic that first gave us Bill and now Ericka.
Slowly, there has been rain to the parched region. The feedbacks are
not what they should be, given the hydrology changes to the Colorado,
but at least there has been some monsoonal conditions as a result.
This is the pattern change I missed with the storm inbetween Bill and
Ericka--because for the past few years in studying the tracks,
electrically, the GOC has been so Gaia poor that storms moved away
from it at some point. What I seem to be missing in my models, crude
yet powerful as they are, is Steve's moon and moon feedback inputs,
and then, of course, seen electrically and biologically.
What I am saying is the gravity wave that occurred during BILL caused
a fundimental change in the electrical character of the region.
That movement cut across the GOM almost exactly the path of this
storm, including pretty much the path from the North Atlantic.
Only the moon went from west to east and this storm is going the
other way. And I should add that the moon path brought a fundimental
change to the E. Pac, too, w/ rain in S. Cal, rare for the drought
that was in the region, and rare for the time of year that the rain
occurred. PLEASE understand the following point. I DOES NOT MATTER
WHAT THE DIRECTION THE MOON MOVED, FROM WEST TO EAST OR EAST TO WEST--
BECAUSE CURRENT WILL PASS THOUGH A MORE CONDUCTIVE PATH CREATED
EITHER WAY! Think of it this way. Say I have a coil of wire. Does it
matter if I rewind the wire across a room from right to left, or left
to right? Will the conductivity matter by the way I string the wire?
Of course not!
The only thing that matters is how heat is distrubuted from the WAY
electrical pathways have been formed.
Now, again, the biological conditions won't come immediately and
there are feedbacks involved. As I have mention w/ the California
coast, things have been quite Gaia poor from the Colorado, relative
to CAP and Mexican hydrology changes of late . . . BUT the cooling
caused by lack of conductivities due to cloud behaviors THEN causes
upwellings of colder, nutrient rich waters, which then start
biological activity again, but without the river's help. IMHO, this
is what we say here this spring, because there was a pretty cool set
of SST conditions this spring off the coast and they have warmed up
quite a bit, and we have had warm July.
The moon came in and had its impact, IMHO, and now the patterns have
caught up with it, directly and indirectly electrical, then
biological--and the moon path was the driving force behind Ericka.
The chance that this storm would follow the line of the gravity wave
randomly is next to zero. But it did.
The coupling I discuss here is not pressures, not heat, not winds,
not water/clouds content, but electrical--which includes all these
factors in storm behaviors.
Allow me a very technical analogy.
There is a device in electronics called a capacitor. Picture two 'T's
head up against each other. Capacitors are used to pass alternating
currents like the kind of electrical current in the plug that drives
Capacitors are NOT designed to pass a direct current.
One cool thing about EMFs is that they pass in space. Particles, too,
move in space. BUT, electrical currents, direct ones, do not.
Confused? Did you know there is a difference between materials as
insulating to an ELECTRICAL CURRENT but not to a MAGENTIC FIELD?
When a capacitor has an applied direct current of a positive voltage
to one end, this will cause the other end, the plate, to have the
opposite charge. That is because the flux lines created by the ions
on the plate, or the magnetic field of the electrical current, will
pass across the capicitor even though the current will not.
This is really an important set of ideas, so please ask if you don't
know WTF I am talking about.
Okay. Now, when it comes to an alternating current (think sine wave)
in a perfect capacitor the signal will pass as the electrons on
either end of the plates will always go the other way, so you get an
output signal that they say is 180 degrees out of phase of the input
Now, capacitors in reality are far from perfect, and the behavior I
am about to discuss is not perfect either. How good a capacitor
works, or the "capacitance", is function of such things as the
distance between the plates and the size of the plates and a variable
called the "dielectric" constant. That value depends on what material
is inbetween the plates. This gets to the idea that a material can be
electrically insulating to a current but may let a magnetic field
pass. And, BTW, this idea was hard even on Maxwell--such that only
his vector math survived.
Okay. Turns out that the dielectric of water is about 80 times that
of a vacuum, and air is just slightly over a vacuum. Now picture ions
in space held by the earth's EMF. The so called van Allen belts.
Electrons in band, protons, then the upper ionosphere, which is
relatively negative in ion cummulation, then the lower ionosphere,
which tends to positive--made that way by the charge separations of
convection. This is very much like a physical "plate", if you will,
of electrons that move in a "current" through space, held by the
earth EMF, much like a wire and metal plate would hold electrons for
a capacitor. So even though the upper atmosphere isn't a metal plate,
it behaves like it in ways. Likewise, clouds can be a little
conductive and move particles of cirrus and water in a plate like
manner, and finally the ocean surface, the ground, can act that way.
So the only question as to how currents "pass", either alternating or
direct, begins to depend on the dielectric values of the air between
upper atmosphere and cloud and, say, ocean. That is why tropical
storms die over land--the capactive behaviors can no longer support
and organize cloud behaviors.
Alright. Now to the point of all of this. I have been saying that a
tropical storm is a point negative ion event over its center. There
is emperical proof of that:
"Rarely seen lightning fields and purple sprites were detected in the
eye of the hurricane by the ER-2 pilot as
he flew more than 19.8 km (65,000 ft) above the
That would be the capactive state. The direct currents, or the
strikes, are rare:
"Surprisingly, not much lightning occurs in the inner core within
about 100 km or 60 mi of the tropical cyclone center. Only around a
dozen or less cloud-to-ground strikes per hour occur around the
eyewall of the storm...."
Consistent with this, Burke et al.  has reported the detection
of keV electrons and large electric field transients above a
hurricane. These various observations all suggest that what is
occurring at great depths in the ocean may couple to the ionosphere.
The coupling mechanisms was said by them not to be well understood,
but it seems probable that "capacitive coupling" through the
displacement current my drive conduction currents within the
ionosphere [Hale and Baginski, 1987].
Now, while NASA was looking at the ion charge over the eye, Bates et
al in Nature published a paper about the partial pressures of CO2
under Felix. As the storm passed through, that paper IMHO shows that
the CO2 then is part of discharge much like the chemistry of a
battery changes as it passes currents.
So the point is, with the idea that dielectrics vary with water --
what is it about an eye? That's right--it has no cloud cover.
Therefore, it is going to have a better dielectric than the cloud
covered areas. Hence, concentrations of ions over the eye will be
able to pass alternating currents with incredible power and ease.
OTOH, over the cloud covered cirrus disk--just the other way.
Contrast this with a more frontal like storm--for instance, a tornado
cloud, you have a dry line right next to the area of cloud behavior
where capacitance is going to be right for an alternating current to
pass with a good dielectric value compared to what or how it would
behave through a water laden space.
That is why pin hole eyes tell you something--of the incredible EMF
organization that underlies the strongest storms.
When El Nino ended in 1998, there was a 10 degree F. shift in SSTs in
ONE MONTH. That was accompanied by an actual creation, at the same
time, of a THIRD van Allen belt inbetween the electron outer shell
and the proton inner shell. This speaks of an INCREDIBLE electrical
flip that then had a dominating influence on cloud behavior--which
feeds back a cooling impact.
The Peruvian fisherman had it right--they considered ENSO in its
biological context of whether there were fish or not. The Japanese
ideas defining ENSO purely thermally based does not, for instance.
Meanwhile, fish have actually evolved EMF sensors! My view is before
a shark could see the EMF image of its prey, the organ was actually a
crude Gaia sensor. Bees have similar EMF sensors--helps them forrage
or not depending on weather, so they can sense conditions without
having to leave their humid hives . . .
Water is not nearly as conductive as salt water.
Try an experiment. Take water and voltmeter and test its resistance.
Then add salt. Retest.
River water is less saline, of course, and the surface of the ocean
is stratified by temperature and salinities.
Another experiment. Same salt water solution. Put in microwave. Then
retest. Note that resistance goes down. Heat trapping clouds can't
form as well over certain types of colder ocean conditions because
they are too non-conductive for the clouds to exist. This is why
there is a loose association between tropical storm activity and
ocean SSTs. BUT, gaia is the modulation--as life thrives on the
upwellings, on the materials washed into the biosphere by rivers,
life holds or contains conductive materials near the ocean surface,
and causes an increase in conductivities. Hence, there is a
modulation, and the real coupling is ELECTRICAL and BIOLOGICAL.
There are over 3,000 dead in France from a heat wave there. Do any of
you recall my posting the NASA link on an algae bloom off the French
Indeed, all of Europe is impacted by the HEAT:
Why isn't the bio electrical connection more clear? Is it because we
are just getting these kinds of images and data?
Water temperatures off of Charleston, SC
Water Temperatures off of Northern Fl/GA
My prediction of a NC storm timed out poorly w/ my April forecast and
we indeed had TD 7 but it didn't go as big as I thought due to the
cold SSTs there, but there is still time for a Erika type rebound,
because the cold SSTs mean upwelling and bio activity:
"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
BUT understand that what is happen there is Gaia consistant--because
the upwelling of cold waters means nutriants for biological activity.
This them means that, despite the fact that SSTs are colder and hence
less conductive, in the whole picture of things this leads to pattern
changes where contained conductivitives by the resulting biological
bloom then will reverse winds . . . by moving cirrus and creating
cold winds that right turn to lows and dig into the surface and help
inducting currents that support cirrus.
Red tides in the W. Car by Mexico. Not good for Mitch like
potentials . . . as we have seen there in the non-El Nino years. See
of red tide links: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/redtidegrouper.jsp
- View Sourcehttp://www.millenniumweather.com/tropical/discuss.html
[I]If I were to guess, my initial approximation would be a landfall
in the Carolinas. [/I]
Interstingly, this is what I said in APRIL and again repeated it on
August 18, 2003:
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
- View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
> http://www.millenniumweather.com/tropical/discuss.htmlThis ain't looking good...
> [I]If I were to guess, my initial approximation would be a landfall
> in the Carolinas. [/I]