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

Mid Season Gaia tropical storm report

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    http://stormsfury1.com/Temp/HeatContent.png Hurricane Heat Potential Map from August 13th, 2003 - surprisingly low along the path of Erika. This heat map
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 18, 2003

      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.
      What gives?

      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
      electrical process.



      Erika IR 20 hour loop of landfall.

      The strike data, which you get real time here--
      http://www.lightningstorm.com/tux/jsp/gpg/lex1/mapdisplay_free.jsp --
      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?
      What happens?

      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
      few clouds.

      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
      to ground.

      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
      much zero.

      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
      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
      your computer.

      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?
      Still confused?

      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. [1992] 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
    • Mike Doran
      http://www.millenniumweather.com/tropical/discuss.html [I]If I were to guess, my initial approximation would be a landfall in the Carolinas. [/I] Interstingly,
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 10, 2003
        [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

      • David
        ... This ain t looking good...
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 10, 2003
          --- In methanehydrateclub@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Doran" <mike@u...> wrote:
          > http://www.millenniumweather.com/tropical/discuss.html
          > [I]If I were to guess, my initial approximation would be a landfall
          > in the Carolinas. [/I]

          This ain't looking good...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.