I was in a conversation on another bb with Greg Staff and he asked
some good questions about my forecast. I sent him pictures of TWC
radar from a storm that hit us mid March. I have that picture in our
photos, here. Also, the natural hazards NOAA link pictures an algae
bloom off the coast just west of here such that the clouds are NOT
over the algae patch, and were like that all morning as the storm
rolled in. Here is our exchange:
In a message dated 4/2/2004 10:39:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Thanks for sending the algae bloom and the radar files. I have a few
comments (of course).
1) These are moments in time. Without a loop it's impossible to tell
For the moment, you are going to have to trust my observation of the
event. You have there one single frame, but what I OBSERVED was the
areas above algae patch as cloudless for the several hours I watched
it. If you recalled, I posted TWC link as it was happening real time
and told everyone here to watch what I was seeing.
2) It appears the algae bloom may go quite a bit further north and
south, but it's hard to tell because of the cloud cover.
The bloom runs all the way to the Bay Area and north into Oregon.
Where I want you to look at is that "bump" were there is a decreased
algae concentration--as that is where the clouds came ashore. What
we are talking about in a strong DC capacitive coupled field is water
vapor DIFFUSING and that is why you have the increases in cloud
density on either side of the algae patch. Further, since water is
about 80 times the dielectric as air, the feature then causes "waves"
or Doran waves as I like to call them, from large scale varying
capacitive coupling that goes on from the area of strongest coupling.
Even with that one frame you have, the odds of the clouds conforming
to the algae patch like that by chance is next to nothing. It begs
as to why the algae patch would match the clouds above. You could
couple them in another way, I suppose, by saying that the sustained
winds that created the upwellings that caused the algae patch also
cause the cloud pattern. However, winds here shift when storms come
in--the off shore flow is with fair weather . . .
3) Last year I saw clouds that looked like horses, but the Broncos
still had a bad season.
I am a huge Viking fan and we have never won a super bowl, so don't
Since my hurricane prediction format doesn't suit you, are you going
to post your April Fools day Hurricane forecast?
My forecast is at http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/methanehydrateclub
PS: If anyone else wants to look at these files, let me know and I
will forward them on to you. It'd be good to get other opinions.
Second exchange of emails
Really fine questions.
In a message dated 4/2/2004 1:27:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
This is what I boiled down from your prediction on Yahoo. Is this
correct? Care to add anything?
What is a CV storm?
CV is Cape Verde for Cape Verde Islands. In a line with those
islands thunderstorms roll off Africa. These storms are literally
the most electrically explosive on earth. The strikes are much more
discharging than those in tornado alley in the US. What happens is
between the US, Central America, and South America and Africa, HUGE
voltages of negative charges are taken from the ionosphere during the
peak of the hurricane seasson. (That peak, BTW, a bell shaped curved,
due to dams and human activity like CO2 increases, has SHIFTED later,
about 3 weeks, which is why we saw to December TS last year). When
those strikes make the ionosphere even more positive than it is
typically, along the Equatorial Current in the Atlantic, where there
is impedance values that bring electrons to the ocean surface
relative to an earth EMF which is CREATED by this convection and the
patterns in the first place, there is a zone where any forming ice
crystals get "zapped". Elongated. Ice forms with radical
assymetry. Nearby in what is called the ITCZ, or inter tropical
convergence zone, water that is NOT forming ice and trapping heat
along the Equatorial current moves over the Gulf Stream. There, the
current is moving such that induction ges the other way, and
impedance provides a more positive charge to the ocean. There is
less of a displacement field between ocean and ionosphere and the
cirrus form with more symmetry and trap infra red heat. Any kind of
distrubrance off the African coast will start a pulse, or wave of
electrical activity, and because the dielectric of water is 80 times
that of air, the electrical and the convective processes couple and
self organize there. Tropical storms form when a POINT of charges
form, and organize what is the traditional high pressure of fair
weather and displacement currents with low pressures and convection
and charge separations.
What is a fish storm?
A storm that doesn't landfall in the Atlantic, like Fabian last
year. Although there are some people on Bermuda who wouldn't like
Isabel reduces the chance for a following year tropical storm.
From landfalling in the same place. Like Izzy hit the year before
last and nothing landfell up the Mississippi delta. However, what I
was looking for and saw was an almost exact and continuing pattern of
fair and convective weather from the GOM to the hydrate fields off
the Carolina coasts. I think another Carolina storm landfalls again
this year, Indeed, I predict it. I also predict, however, a drought
developing in Florida consistant with this same flow pattern and what
it means electrically. As the strike link shows this later in the
season, I will actually point it out to you real time. It's quite
interesting to see and think about.
My view is we certainly will indeed see a fish storm then the danger
a US landfall occurs.
IOWs a Fabian storm changes the electrical balance and causes,
electrically, conditions to be ripe for a landfalling storm. Kind of
like you have to rub the glass rod with silk first before that rod
brought near your head makes your hair stand up .
We could have an extremely wet CV season off the African coast.
Later, again, in a shifted season, when the CV season starts we will
have wave after wave coming from W. Africa, and some of them will go
south toward the Caribean Islands, unlike last year.
Thunderstorm activity won't cause a storm to be pushed so far north.
The drought in Florida--a smaller degree of TS activity in the SE
will mean, electrically, less chance of a storm being carried north
later in the CV season. This is based on a decreasing amount of
algae patch activity.
CV storms are more likely to go south.
I would not be surprised to see storms move like Izzy did two years
[note: into Mexico at the Yucatan Peninsula].
Later in the season, the Izzy kind of storm becomes more likely.
Because the Mississipp is active again and the CV storms more likely
move through the Caribean first.
[An] [e]arly Allison like storm is likely.
The W. Caribbean will see a cat 4 or 5 storm later in the year.
Third exchange of emails
In a message dated 4/5/2004 6:37:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Based on your last post, here then are what I believe are your
predictions for the 2004 'cane season. Comments by me are in
1) Isabel reduce[d] the chance for a following year tropical storm
from landfalling in the same place. [Mike: Doesn't this conflict
with your later statement: "I think another Carolina storm landfalls
again this year, indeed, I predict it."]
It reduces the probability that we see a Carolina landfall, but I
still think one will occur anyway. BTW, if you have seen the SOI
index lately, it went down to minus 63, which is a very large
reading. We haven't seen that kind of SOI reading since 1997 with
the 500 year El Nino for that year. The NOAA models on ENSO show an
El Nino developing, and historically, El Nino means less tropical
storm activity. It also causes a relative NE movement of the storms,
IMHO. Anyway, what we have seen recently with Dr. Gray is early in
the season as the SOI is strongly negative and the hurricane season
is slow he has adjusted his numbers down, then when the shifted
season hits he points back to his earlier prediction. I have had to
say both that the El Nino is an interesting factor AND that we still
will have the big numbers--which shows you some of the power of
clarity and coupling that occurs when you understand the forcing and
the modulation involved.
After Camille went up the Mississippi delta, the following year there
were no hurricanes to run up the delta. Why? My view it has to do
with the ecological, algae patch changes that occur from the roiling
of a hurricane. Camille, BTW, followed river changes to the
Mississippi. The two hurricanes that went up the delta two years ago
followed similar river changes to the delta lakes. Yet with Isabel,
the storm struck later in the season and wasn't anything like a
catagory 5 as it approached the Carolina coasts. Nothing in the
drought and strike pattern I have seen following Isabel would
diminish the impact of huge hydrate fields off the coast of the
Carolinas -- and predicted luner or moon tides are going to also be
favorable for the same pattern as last year to evolve (a fair weather
strip that runs from the central GOM and some algae patch there to
the Carolina coast). This pattern, electrically, creates a guiding
strip or ridge of fair weather that CV storms track along--with a
beeline for the Carolinas given the hydrate fields there.
The only question is El Nino, and the tendency of prevailing El Nino
electrical patterns to cause fish storms.
2) I also predict a drought developing in Florida. [This might be
difficult to prove since one year does not a drought make.]
I have been watching the drought monitor and a dry patch is starting
to grow there. If storms get turned NE that pattern will devolope
but then end in the winter, as during an El Nino Florida always gets
very strong rain.
3) My view is we certainly will indeed see a fish storm then the
danger for a US landfall occurs. [Don't we see fish storms nearly
And you really see them during a typical El Nino season--nuttin' but.
Do you mean a fish storm nearly immediately followed by a US landfall
Yes. AKA Fabian/Isabel.
4) We could have an extremely wet CV season off the African coast.
[Can you define "extremely wet" in this context?]
Well above average. Late. IE the bell curve shifted---about a month
for the CV season.
5) Later, we will have wave after wave coming from W. Africa, and
some of them will go south toward the Caribbean Islands, unlike last
year. [Don't we normally have "wave after wave from W. Africa" during
hurricane season? So is the key point here, "some will go south"?]
We don't always have them. BTW, once you start to understand the
electrical meaning of the storms, you can see how an existing storm
off the African coast coming in contact with an existing storm will
die off the coast and seems to strengthen the existing TS downflow.
That's because we are talking about water ice forming or not in DC
fields, and water vapor diffusing movements. An existing TS in the
ITCZ dominates the hydro electrical organization of the region, and
storms rolling off the W. African coast only add to the positive
charge of the ionosphere and the defining features of the defining TS
by DC field and cloud microphysics. BUT, once Fabian was over
Iceland, Isabel could occur and did occur and will occur--and move
west, and the bi polar nature of the north EMF, with two nodes, one
over NA over the Hudson Bay and one over Europe, begin to influence
the global electrical patterns that cause these largest of storms to
track the way they do. In the end, the biosphere winds, and gets its
rain from these storms. And even close calls cause Doran waves
ashore, and rain feedbacks. But just like the clouds patterning the
way they did off the Pacific coast west of here, when the CV season
is on and the storms are tracking west, the clouds get modulated just
offshore of the Carolinas and charge separations occur from Doran
waves ashore and that fair weather strip comes NE over the North
Atlantic, and the storms get guided. My view is this happens despite
El Nino, but it's a tough call.
6) [There is] less chance of a storm being carried north later in the
CV season. CV storms are more likely to go south.
LATER in the season. Early, El Nino like SOI and SSTs rip them up.
Meterologists will blame El Nino like 'shear'. It's sun circling the
earth BS, because it isn't framed in global large scale EMFs and
cloud microphysics, in viscousity problems, and it is based on
correlations and not real couplings, but it later in the year comes
7) I would not be surprised to see storms move like Izzy did two
years ago[note: into Mexico at the Yucatan Peninsula]. Later in the
season, the Izzy kind of storm becomes more likely.
8) [An] [e]arly Allison like storm is likely.
Funny I made that prediction just as Texas got hit already with the
rains. You should have seen the strike activity over Texas a few
days ago, and then it moved over the delta. The strike activity on
early Tuesday morning over Texas was so intense that it caused
a "short" between storms over the ocean and over Nevada and we got
rain about three in the morning despite a forecast of zero percent
chance of rain. It was awesome to watch and understand. Again,
understand, that the dielectric constant of water is about 80 times
that of air, so when you have these intense electrical events (which
went with a rising SOI from minus 63 and a very strong solar wind)
occur patterns follow clouds--and you can see from the strikes and
with your knowledge of that dielectric where the electrical forcing
will occur and CREATE new clouds. This is why weather models are
complete crap after 5 days--yet why we have a deterministic thing
9) The W. Caribbean will see a cat 4 or 5 storm later in the year. [I
have assumed this is not the same as prediction #8, since Allison was
an early, weak, Cat 1 storm, albeit with lots of rain.
--- In email@example.com, mike@u... wrote:
> From the drought monitor I am interested in four main features of
> global macrobiological electrical circuit as it relates to US
> landfalling cyclones. First, the obvious one is tha the earth EMF
> over the Hudson Bay has weakened. I could get into some detail WHY
> but this is observed--so it is for another post. The second is
> or the Colorado Arizona Project, which is a source of reduced flow
> water down the Colorado into the Gulf of California (GOC). In
> between these two points of field and conductivity changes is a
> subtropical jet, which has been highly weakened. As a result,
> has been a persistant drought in between the GOC and the Hudson Bay
> node that you can see clearly in the drought monitor data.
> Third, a dam was constructed in the Carolinas last year and there
> even a black algae patch seen off the Carolina coast. Fourth,
> was also level and delta lake construction projects in the
> Mississippi last year and I assume further work this year. Much of
> the result of the Mississippi changes in hydrology from human
> influences resultes in the erosion of the delta and for the
> to flow more directly to the deeper portions of the Gulf of Mexico
> (GOM) which results in very strong health of biogenic hydrates.
> algae seems to do quite well, too, and a red tide existed last year
> north of the Yukatan in the GOM for much of the tropical storm
> season. This area of convection and great conductivity was
> by the poor EMF in the SW, and connected, electrically, to the
> instability over the Carolinas.
> The connection was a looping kind that resulted in an offshore flow
> and upwelling off the Carolinas. Isabel certainly did come and
> and roil the waters which generally speaking reduces the chance for
> following year tropical storm, from a conductivity standpoint.
> Indeed, that is what happened two years ago in the Mississippi
> and caused me to correctly predict no landfalling in the
> delta last year.
> My friend Steve MacDonald has completed a moon gravity wave
> of the tropical storm season. His analysis calls for an increased
> level of roiling. So there is nothing from the moon to prevent a
> continued connection as above.
> John Daly's solar statistician Landstiedt (I probably do not spell
> his name correctly) also calls for nothing interesting from a solar
> standpoint, as in El Nino. This is interesting because NOAAs
> currently call for one. El Nino reduces hurricanes, but the
> question, electrically, is not if there will be El Nino SSTs but if
> there will be electrical patterns that prevent tropical storms from
> landfalling. My view is they will not, and if you look at 1997,
> is extremely important, as all the storms, few as they were,
> were "fish" storms and hooked harmlessly out to the North
> My view is we certainly will indeed see a fish storm, perhaps the
> first big CV one like Fabian, but once we get one, the global
> electrical circuit will be ready for an electrical readjustment
> which is when the danger for a US landfall occurs. Nothing in this
> picture prevents another Carolina landfall. Indeed, with the
> winter's fires and dust storms in West Africa and dams there,
> upwelling currently with cold SSTs, we could have an extremely wet
> season off the African coast, and waves coming off either to
> existing CV storms or create another one.
> The connection between the GOM, as described above, and Carolinas,
> will exist again. The dry patch in Florida has grown, and the
> residual black algae patch, the red tides there, have decreased.
> Florida waters should be less conductive and hence thunderstorm
> activity off Doran waves from a large TS won't cause a storm to be
> pushed so far north, IMHO. Further, there was small volcanic
> in the East Caribean this winter, and that should increase SOx
> marine macrobiology there. More conductive waters to the south
> that CV storms are more likely to go south. There are some other
> things going on here, but I would not be surprised to see storms
> like Izzy did two years ago.
> Early Allison like storm is likely. We continue to have low SOx
> the GOM is very conductive. It will all depend on when the moon
> gravity wave comes through. Later, from blooms from roiling,
> depending on the path, we could see an echo storm in the GOM.
> in the season, the Izzy kind of storm becomes more likely. Florida
> will see growing drought conditions and chances of fires in the
> The season will again be shifted and above well above averages of
> past 100 years. The W. Caribean will see a cat 4 or 5 storm later
> the year.
> Other comments:
> 1. Comments on William Gray's forecast:
> According to the popular press, the leading forecaster in the world
> on hurricanes is Dr. William Gray out of CSU. The above link is to
> his more recent forecast. Gray is a skeptic, BTW. Macrobiology
> requires a dynamic modulating large scale electrical features.
> Macrobiology factors are much better explained in terms other than
> air pressures and winds, much like the movements of the planets are
> much better explained by the fact that the sun has more mass and
> force of gravity from it better described the movement of the
> planets, despite what the dogma of the past was that the earth
> revolved around the sun.
> The PRIMARY flaw in all climate models is that they fail to couple
> cloud behaviors, kinetics, if you will, with radiative and heat
> trapping trends. Indeed, a more recent paper stated that what heat
> dynamics should be given more green house gases recently hasn't
> matched with water vapor trends, which is in my opinion more
> gaia . . . but I will leave that for another day here. Given this
> primary flaw, Gray's correlative studies actually DO show coupling.
> That is, given a certain condition, hurricanes are coupled to it.
> This is a start, anyway. But we are still left with, given the
> approach, the sun circles around the earth approach, that ocean
> can be over 84 degrees, and it can be in the middle of September,
> it can be as clear a sky as there is space in JBW's head. While Dr.
> Gray is discussing a climate coupling, as opposed to the weather
> coupling I am discussing, it is a step in the right direction
> he is capturing longer term electro static trends.
> I do not directly use correlative statistics, and think that Gray's
> approach is flawed because of a changing experience base, and what
> do use couples behaviors so strongly that I can go places where
> will not--like predicting a landfalling event. So, without much
> ado, lets go over Gray's Preditors and discuss them:
> Predictor 1. November 500 MB Geopotential Height in the far North
> Atlantic (+)
> (67.5-85°N, 10E-50°W) Positive values of this predictor correlate
> very strongly (r = -0.7) with negative values of the Arctic
> Oscillation (AO) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Negative
> AO and NAO values imply more ridging in the central Atlantic and a
> likely warm north Atlantic Ocean (50-60°N, 10-50°W). Also, on
> timescales, weaker zonal winds in the subpolar areas are indicative
> of a relatively strong thermohaline circulation which is favorable
> for hurricane activity. Positive values of this November index are
> negatively correlated with both 200 mb zonal winds and trade wind
> strength the following September in the tropical Atlantic. The
> associated reduced tropospheric vertical wind shear enhances
> conditions for TC development. Other features that are directly
> correlated with this predictor are low sea level pressure in the
> Caribbean and a warm North and Tropical Atlantic. Both of the
> are also hurricane-enhancing factors.
> Ocean current directions have different impedence meaning. The NAO
> no different. What then occurs is strong displacement currents will
> elongate heat trapping cirrus trying to form, and cause, relatively
> speaking, water vapor movements to where the ice forming is more
> effective outside of the displacement current. Put another way, if
> ocean current inducts in such a manner as to bring electrons to the
> surface, between that ocean surface and the relatively positively
> charged ionosphere, ice trying to form elongates and doesn't take
> water vapor as well. Phase change energies relatively go elsewhere,
> and that air has a tendency to fall, and pressures rise. Because
> region with warm currents and much ocean, as well as near the north
> EMF pole(s) -- there is an ability to look at what is occurring
> the measures and make longer range predictions on how clouds will
> behave later in the tropical
> storm season.
> Predictor 2. October-November SLP in the Gulf of Alaska (-)
> (45-65°N, 120-160°W) Negative values of this predictor are strongly
> associated with a positive Älaskan pattern" (Renwick and Wallace
> 1996) as well as a positive "Pacific North American Pattern" (PNA)
> which implies reduced blocking over the central Pacific with
> increased heights over the western United States. The negative mode
> of this predictor is typically associated with current warm eastern
> Pacific equatorial SST conditions which usually lead to cool ENSO
> conditions the following year. Low sea level pressure is observed
> occur in the Gulf of Alaska with a decaying El Niño event, and
> anomalously high pressure is observed with a weakening La Niña
> (Larkin and Harrison 2002). Negative values of this predictor
> indicate that La Niña conditions are likely the following year
> tends to enhance Atlantic hurricane activity.
> This is a good place to discuss ENSO and hurricanes. A hurricane is
> unique electrical coupling between the ionosphere and the tropical
> oceans. It occurs typically from a wave that in a broader sense
> relies on the entire global electrical circuit. The tropics contain
> the warmest, most conductive currents, and hence where the largest
> electrical instabilities or storms can be expressed. This is why a
> hurricane can hit New York--because it is close to a large and
> conductive ocean current, the Gulf Stream, despite it having a
> location far north of were the largest radiative and heat trapping
> energies occur in the tropics. The biggest wind pattern in the
> tropics is the SOI, or Southern Oscillation index. This index will,
> like the NAO, change induction, as well as gas exchanges, which
> impact conductivities and, again, how water vapor forms on heat
> trapping cirrus or not. Pulses of electrical currents can move
> the tropics and aid in formation of North Atlantic storms with much
> better effectiveness given the La Nina state, and this much has
> well correlated. What I have seen specifically, when a strong
> negative SOI trends strongly positive--that is when the most likely
> time to see a tropical storm form in the Atlantic. If an El Nino is
> occurring--the values basically stay negative and no storms form.
> Predictor 3. September 500 MB Geopotential Height in Western North
> America (+)
> (35-55°N, 100-120°W) Positive values of this predictor correlate
> strongly (r = 0.8) with positive values of the PNA. PNA values are
> usually positive in the final year of an El Niño event (Horel and
> Wallace 1981). Therefore, cooler ENSO conditions are likely during
> the following year. Significant lag correlations exist between this
> predictor and enhanced geopotential height anomalies in the
> subtropics during the following summer. High heights in the
> subtropics reduce the height gradient between the tropics and
> subtropics resulting in easterly anomalies at 200 mb throughout the
> tropics which favor hurricane development.
> This is another El Nino factor, but if there was something I tried
> make clear to everyone here that since El Nino is poorly defined
> what it is, how it COUPLES with cloud behaviors of any sort is
> likewise so flawed.
> So, I am going to use this as an opportunity to teach about how
> clouds uncouple thermally given macrobiological changes. The above
> link is also discussing the same geographical area, and what are
> called the Santa Ana winds. These winds end up causing upwelling
> colder SSTs. Normally, one would then think that will colder SSTs
> would see less rain--but as it turns out, at some point rains come,
> the oceans heat up by cloud behaviors, just like an La Nina turns
> into an El Nino. From a thermal standpoint, it makes no sense that
> something cold becomes warm and something warm becomes cold UNLESS
> there is a counterforcing. That forcing is biological. Upwelling
> leads to greater nutrient
> content and that leads to increases in conductiivty, DESPITE the
> that decreases in ocean surface temperature, independant of life,
> would lead to LESS conductivity. Life is your source of a flip
> A Santa Ana, and cold SSTs, like we have right now off the coast of
> California, will be a sign of changing weather patterns down the
> Predictor 4. July 50 MB Equatorial U (-)
> (5°S-5°N, 0-360) Easterly anomalies of the QBO during the previous
> July indicate that the QBO will likely be in the west phase during
> the following year's hurricane season. The west phase of the QBO
> been shown to provide favorable conditions for development of
> tropical cyclones in the deep tropics according to Gray et al.
> 1993, 1994) and Shapiro (1989). Hypothetical mechanisms for how the
> QBO affects hurricanes are as follows: a) Atlantic TC activity is
> inhibited during easterly phases of the QBO due to enhanced lower
> stratospheric wind ventilation and increased upper-troposphere-
> stratosphere wind shear, and b) for slow moving systems, the west
> phase of the QBO has a slower relative wind (advective wind
> to the moving system) than does the east phase. This allows for
> greater coupling between the lower stratosphere and the
> This is a place where I can say without doubt that Dr. Gray's
> speculation here is fundimentally flawed. The state of the global
> electrical circuit as expressed by very very low pressure winds
> the tropics are fundimentally about the state of the global
> circuit and how that circuit moves a conductor. Since the QBO is
> dense AND conductive, its low mass can be motivated in an EMF, just
> like an electric motor is turned in a current. This movement
> conceptually follows Fleming's LEFT hand rule. Because tropical
> storms are electro static in organization, the become less likely
> occur given a QBO state because it reflects global electrical
> Predictor 5. September-November SLP in the Gulf - SE USA (-)
> (15-35°N, 75-95°W) This feature is strongly related to the
> year's August-September sea level pressure in the tropical and
> subtropical Atlantic. August-September SLP in the tropical Atlantic
> is one of the most important predictors for seasonal activity, that
> is, lower-than-normal sea level pressure is favorable for more TC
> activity. Low pressure in this area during September-November
> correlates quite strongly with the positive phase of the PNA. In
> addition, easterlies at 200 mb throughout the tropical Atlantic are
> typical during the following year's August-September period with
> values of this predictor.
> The question I would ask is--how are electrical currents flowing?
> Cold oceans don't mean ppoor electrical flow, and at the same time,
> warm SSTs don't mean anything, either, because biological activity
> from upwelling of depletion of those nutrients after warming and
> upwelling ends, can mean relative reduction in conductivity. Again,
> correlations can be drawn, but the more important question is--what
> do they MEAN?
> Predictor 6. November SLP in the Subtropical NE Pacific (+)
> (7.5-22.5°N, 125-175°W) This feature is also strongly related to
> following year's August-September sea level pressure in the
> and subtropical Atlantic. High pressure in this area correlates
> low sea level pressure in the tropical Atlantic and easterly
> anomalies at 200 mb during the following August through September
> period. According to Larkin and Harrison (2002), high pressure in
> this area appears during most winters preceding the development of
> La Niña event. High pressure in this region forces stronger trade
> winds in the east Pacific which increases upwelling and helps
> initiate La Niña conditions which eventually enhance Atlantic
> hurricane activity during the following summer. In addition, this
> predictor correlates with low geopotential heights at 500 mb
> throughout the tropics the following year which is also
> favorable for more hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
> This again is about where at 500 MB cirrus are found, and 200 mb is
> where the ionosphere starts to become interesting, and shows how
> sub tropical jet is going to behave, in all likelihood, given bio
> electrical trends.
> What looks to be a factor I am looking at this year, compared to
> Gray's "predictors"?
> Static attraction, repulsion movement of the carbon monoxide
> to the West African fires (see link below).
> We do know that per Fleming's right hand rule and impedance
> guidelines, that the Equatorial currents will put electrons on the
> ocean surface. Put another way, there is a positive vector
> into the ocean just based on the direction of current. Since
> repel, we should expect, then, for the carbon monoxide, which
> a negative charge, to repel against the Equatorial and move
> elsewhwere. Conversely, over the ionosphere where there is little
> convection in the Equatorial regions, the ionosphere is
> positive. In other words, this is a region with fair weather
> to ground--about 100 to 250 volts per meter as measured
> Africa is the most struck places on earth, so there is plenty of
> charges taken out of the lower ionsphere nearby for this to be
> particularly true along the warm, and therefore conductive waters
> the Equatorial, and South America during the period of December
> February also has thunderstorms which will take negative charges
> of the air. So, since opposits attract, why won't the ozone move
> the Equatorial toward the ionosphere? Then factor in ambiant winds,
> pressures, rain patterns, inversion layers--it's all too
> of a mess, right?
> However, the BIOLOGICAL impact that is important here will only be
> relative to the ocean. Thus, while some carbon monoxide may indeed
> attracted to the fair weather zones of the Equatorial regions of
> ionosphere, the carbon monoxide that is moving toward the positive
> charges to the surface of the ocean is what will matter later in
> terms of blooms associated with the ashe material that starts food
> chains. That movement is at this time of season going to be to the
> Atlantic's ITCZ--where the current moves from east to west and
> inducts a positive current to the ocean surface. Plus, relative to
> the land ocean interface, there is likewise such a positive to
> impact. Furthermore, the smoke initinally probably drops the phase
> change temperature of cirrus, along with causing elongation in any
> capactive field, such that water vapor would tend to diffuse to
> places where convection would more easiliy occur. In short, we see
> what we see by the Sahel, below.
> As many of you may well know by now I do a hurricane forecast
> April 1, and the past three years it has been the best in the
> using the electro static gaia concepts I have poorly attempted to
> communicate to this fixed set of mindsets here. For instance, last
> year at this time I predicted the Carolina tropical storm
> landfalling. The reason I am able to make these predictions is
> because the systems discussed are coupled electrically, describing
> cloud behaviors in a much more effective manner than coupling
> thermally cloud behaviors, and, more importantly, the modulations,
> which too are electrical, bring a determinism to an essentially
> complex and chaotic problem. My expectations are low, and while I
> hope for discussion, I don't expect it.
> Non-the-less, here is a preview, just for you all. I have been
> watching fires and dust storms in West Africa--which are probably
> connected to the dams there. Anyway, the soot runs out to the ocean
> and will impact the biosphere were the CV storms begin in a
> macroscopic manner.. Carbon monoxide is also electrical in its
> character and will impact cloud nucleation rates the same way that
> other ions do--and SSTs cooled where the carbon monoxide patterned,
> and patterned electrically in how it did impact those SSTs. Those
> SSTs as cooled later lead to upwelling and more biological material
> for later in the CV season.
> Same thing happened w/ the Florida fires and we had black algae
> patches off the W. Keys and tropical storms and heavy rains
> associated with the drought and fires they had. I was able to make
> some particularly accurate long range predictions based on that
> algae patch a few years ago . . .
> The CV season could be outragous--because the biological boost
> with dams that delay the sed and flow of nutrients from what should
> be a rainy year for them given what soot and ash has deposited in
> nearby oceans and how that acts to cause blooms and increases in
> macro conductivities.
> I have some analysis about where these CV storms will go and what
> will happen early in the GOM, but this is the main scoop--fires and
> dust storms in Africa impacting the CV area.
> 2 Rare Tropical Storm in S. Atlantic followed by hurricane there.
> On 19 January 2004 another cyclonic circulation developed in the
> South Atlantic Ocean just east of Salvador, Brazil. Satellite
> and scatterometer winds (indicating tropical storm strength) are
> presented below. Here is satellite pictures of the second tropical
> cyclone to ever form in the south Atlatnic ocean!
> What needs to be appreciated about the IR and visable shots is the
> half circle of dots of clouds around the storm--this is where it
> its electrical pattern from--the charge separations of convection
> make the ionosphere around the storm relatively positive. Plus it
> in the form of a "wave" in that the ITCZ extends to Africa, where
> there is also convection in particular on the terresphere.
> Here where there is more information:
> There was a good solar wind event, as David points out here, that
> and the days preceeding it:
> Bio link? Yep:
> South of the storm, a good algae bloom occurred and was seen on sat
> three days before the storm. Because of the counter current there,
> the circumpolar which normally inducts against cirrus production by
> its direction and orientation of the earth EMF, anomaly warm air
> temperatures and melting bergs have been seen. Again, algae is more
> conductive than the oceans because in order to maintain hydrostatic
> pressure by osmosis, the algae must be more ionized then the ocean
> the creatures are contained in.
> Note the SOI on the 19th swinging positive to negative. This is
> something you see with big electrical events in the Atlantic as it
> impacts the SOI. In fact, it qued the small negative readings we
> at the end of the month. I suspect more effect then cause on the
> as this is a big electro mechanical event--a storm this size.
> Steve MacDonald actually pointed out the storm to me in one of his
> moon gravity wave presentations about a month ago, but I didn't
> that this was an actual tropical storm. The gravity wave began in
> South Pacific and actually was headed toward the southern tip of S.
> America and then went northeast over Southern South America until
> went right over the area of the tropical storm. My view is once
> the S. Atlantic the gravity wave caused a gas exchange increase in
> conductivity relative to the ITCZ and you got the convection of the
> ITCZ to support, electrically, an electrical pattern of this
> magnetude. I wish I had the actual pictures from Steve MacDonald to
> link for the fair reader, because you cannot meaningfully see the
> overlay of gravity wave (moon position) and cloud behavior, knowing
> it is all about capacitive coupling and displacement currents, and
> not see that something is going on there. Once the gravity wave was
> over on the S. Atlantic side--boom. The cloud mass exploded. Now, I
> realize I think and understand way better than I write this, but
> roiling gas exchanges from the gravity wave from the moon isn't
> to do anything over land--as the land isn't stirred by the moon to
> cause a gas exchange change in conductitivy--so it is really
> interesting that once the moon's gravity wave substantially crossed
> over South America--that's when the cloud explosion occurred.
> Here is a good link on the first hurricane ever in the S.
> It's a dated link from the Navy. The storm is called 01L.NONAME
> because the S. Americans have no set terms for catagorizing such
> What is interesting is the solar wind was as elevated as we have
> in a long time--following a lull. Read David's report:
> What's interesting globally is there was a cat 4 to hit OZ and our
> dry snap ended with the storm below that I described. Now, the
> wind up like this impacted this storm because it was forecasted to
> last 24 hours and we had rain for THREE days. Last night over the
> tornado ally there was almost a 10,000 strike event to go w/ TS
> Above link ENSO based long range forecast. This forecast is
> statistical. I will give a causal explaination. What happens with
> Nina like conditions is prevailing winds (Santa Anna, off shore)
> us here in No Cal up to Washington mean blooms and algae patches
> cause cloud dynamics that both compress air (heating) and increase
> precip by the mechanisms as described below.
> SST anomalies along our coast are warm otherwise except for the
> of upwelling--but note that despite that the SSTs are cold just
> along the coast, they are relatively more conductive because of the
> bloom, despite the fact that colder oceans are less conductive than
> warmer. IOWs, here you have this extremely rare hurricane in the
> South Atlantic and SSTs are COLD anomaly. Thermodynamics alone
> not explain!
> Space weather--or electo particles from the sun--is slow at this
> for an existing storm like this--recall that voltages that are
> along the closed isobars of the earth EMF are quite small and the
> nearby strikes and thunderstorms patterned to the east are going to
> have a larger influence--this gets to signal noise and what level
> electrical energy from space is enough to pattern clouds given
> electrical conditions on earth near where it might matter.
> For those really interested in full electro cloud dynamic, check
> this link:
> for current strike data. Just because there are no strikes along
> coast doesn't mean there isn't a DC field from ionosphere to ocean
> some charge separations and negative voltages to ground with
> convection along our coast. Keep in mind, too, that the north EMF
> pole has a node over Hudson Bay, and that strikes are FRACTAL
> evidence of large scale waves of ionospheric alternating voltages.
> Explaination. I live, as you may know, in Redding California.
> Notice from the above map the algae bloom along the Northern
> California Coast. What I observed on radar from a storm that came
> is cloud avoided the area over the dense algae patch. What was
> happening is there was a coupling between ionosphere and ocean
> and cirrus elongated and hence convection formed poorly there.
> vapor diffused east and west and created instability in the clouds
> and compressed the clouds as the flow of diffusing water vapor was
> counter to the circulation. I have saved a TWC radar shot of the
> clouds from the storm if any one is interested.
> This helps the macrobiosphere there where the algae patch is
> it causes precip and eventually river run off (nutrients) to the
> place where the algae exist, and at the same time keeping the area
> cloud free for light to aid in photosynthesis.
> 3. Isabel Analysis.
> There are many papers written, and sometimes it is long before
> society has any idea how important that paper is:
> "The effects of electric field on ice crystal growth had been
> numerically discussed by Scishcheve and Kusalike6-7. They announced
> that the strength of an electric field able to change the ice
> from normal ice(Ih) to cubic ice (Ic) should be at least 10 to the
> 5th kV/m [fair weather voltages are about 10 to the -1 k volts per
> meter]. However, the strength of the electric field used in our
> experiments was only 1/400 of the 10 to the 5th kV/m [fair weather
> voltages would be on order of 1/1,000,000 of these voltages,
> w/ tropical storm transiants above the eye, the transiant ratios
> would be similar to the experiments]. Thus, the morphological
> of the ice in this study was not caused by the ice lattice change.
> Without the electric field, the crystal growth process could be
> considered as a process whereby the water molecules are added one
> one to the crystal lattice. This 'adding' process has normally the
> same probability in all directions, and leads to the formation of
> symmetric ice crystal [figure omitted]. However, when a high
> field is applied, the electric field may cause different molecules
> the DMSO solution[a weak acid--what should be noted is rain water
> slightly acidic from the CO2 and other particles that get dissolved
> in the air--with a pH of about 5.6] to exhibit different behaviors.
> The polar water molecules/clusters may be torqued and rearranged
> under the action of the electric field and forced to joining the
> lattice in a special orientation and position. Hence, different
> growth rates occur in different directions and the ice crystal
> becomes asymmetric. Under the action of an electric field, the
> molecules may rearrange and line up end to end in the direction of
> the electric field. In viewing the crystal structure, this well-
> ordered water molecules/clusters seems like crystal or quasi-
> crystallines. In this case the water molecules/clusters possess an
> ideal situation for rapid crystal growth. That may be the reason
> the main branches, which are parallel to the direction of the
> electric field, grow faster than the other branches."
> Once there in fact is experimental proof of a different growth rate
> by EMF dynamics, which there is ABOVE, you can infer that in a
> hurricane, where there are known DC fields of the same scale as in
> these Chinese experiments on ice formations in DC fields, with the
> ocean spray from 150 plus MPH winds containing all the ions needed
> and matching what was in the experiment. What then happens are
> asymmetric changes where water vapor goes due to the growth rates--
> the more symmetrical forming cirrus. In other words, diffusion
> pressure will cause a movement of water vapor toward the clouds NOT
> in the strong DC capactive field--meaning not in the eye, because
> eye contains no cloud cover, no water to form a strong dielectric
> that would instead exist in the clouds. Phase change energies are
> then organized. The eye is where DC fields have been OBSERVED. This
> is published, peer reviewed science. It is science I am not
> publishing, only science I am pointing out.
> Electrically, the storm is organized.
> On September 13, 2003, for instance, the Air Force Reserve
> Hunters made several of their 39 center fixes on Hurricane Isabel.
> That day the NOAA Hurricane Hunters made two formal center fixes
> flew seven research missions into the storm. The highest winds
> measured by the aircraft were 158 kt (Air Force at 700 mb) and 157
> (NOAA at 8400 ft) between 1700-1730 UTC 13 September. A 156-kt
> level wind (700 mb) was also observed at 1719 UTC 12 September.
> Stronger winds were observed on eyewall dropsondes, with a maximum
> 203 kt reported at 806 mb (4500 ft) at 1753 UTC 13 September. This
> the strongest wind ever observed in an Atlantic hurricane, although
> it likely does not represent a 1-min average. Given the multiple
> mesovortices, if you think of those like tornadoes, even 300 mph
> isn't that hard to believe. That speed in kts represents a MPH wind
> speed of 233.45 MPH. Here's a picture of the 13th when those record
> readings were made:
> What you should notice about the mesovortices from an IR standpoint
> is the symmetry.
> Down below I will point out what that means to Prof.
> Kassin's "analogy".
> The circle of the eye relates to the electrical charge organization
> of the storm inside the eye. This organization comes from the fact
> that the roiling winds are in somewhat of a circular path (there is
> Nature paper by Bates et all on gas exchanges during Hurricane
> from 1999)--and gas exchanges increase conductivities and the eye
> itself offers a dielectric of air compared to water. What you see
> very clearly from these images is a point NEGATIVE ionopsheric
> with the positive voltages in the ionosphere above the storm in a
> ring, yet still inside the eye. The extremely positive charges
> couple to negative charges on the surface and ice in the center of
> the mesovortices elongates--the mesovortices conform to this
> organization in their centers falling and and rising air around
> and then in their movement in a circle inside the eye.. The storm
> becomes progressively ellipse as opposed to circular the further
> from the electrically organizing center the cirrus disk is.
> Because the main organizing forcing in climate is ELECTRICAL, as so
> demonstrated above, this has profound implications on Gaia theory
> Link for refresher on static electrical forces.
> Quantify it.
> I like this Hartmann/Fu paper best. Check out figure on page 22
> entitled Net Cloud Radiative forcing. This tells you how important
> cloud dynamics are in heat dynamics.
> Thankfully, the complexities of cloud heat retention is simplified,
> visually, by IR loops. I use them all the time to seen how the EMF
> altering cirrus when watching a hurricane real time.
> Strikes do not occur in cirrus disk, because one, dielectric of
> in disk eighty times that of air in cyclops eye, and charge
> separations from convection bringing positive voltages to upper
> mass finds a relatively more positive ionosphere and lower cloud
> negative charges finds relatively negative charges on ocean
> Cirrus in the disk are elongated in displacement current. This
> occurrence can even be seen in smaller scale in the 5 vortices and
> thinner but clearly seen cirrus cover inside the eye highlighting
> vortices. The center of each of the vortices is clear of clouds,
> the IR picture appears as 5 circles in a circle, with, again, the
> dielectric difference between air and water playing the part in
> the capacitive coupling takes place. More visuals:
> If a coupling takes place, the orientation of cirrus is to cause
> be inside a field which prevents cloud nucleation and cirrus heat
> trapping feedbacks.
> There is little or no strike activity inside a hurricane.
> "When supercooled water and ice crystals occur at the same
> the ice grows at the expense of the water, and an ice cloud forms.
> This occurs because at a given temperature ice has a greater
> than liquid water for water vapor. Cloud droplets and ice crystals
> first form on certain types of small particles of dust or other
> airborne materials. They are called condensation nuclei when water
> droplets are formed and ice nuclei when ice crystals result. The
> nuclei generally range in size from as small as 0.01 micrometer to
> about 1 micrometer (4/10,000,000 to 4/100,000 inch). The number of
> nuclei vary widely, depending on the source of the air mass in
> the parcel is imbedded. The atmosphere over the ocean generally has
> the lowest number of nuclei, whereas polluted air has the highest.
> The more nuclei, and therefore the more water droplets or ice
> crystals, the slower the process of formation of precipitation-
> particles, because the competition for the available water is
> greater. Thus, although Rain often falls shortly after a cloud
> over the ocean, a much longer time is required over continental
> The China paper tells us that in a strong DC field the cloud
> microphysics become asymmetrical. That means, because the
> is relatively positively charged from thunderstorms separating out
> charges, and bringing negative voltages to ground in the form of
> strikes. (From the image above the key thing to see is how the eye
> circular with the idea that the ionosphere has a point NEGATIVE
> condition, with a ring of POSITIVE ions around it over the centers
> the mesovortices.)
> .......................v .......v
> ........- -----><----- + - + -----><----- -
> ATLANTIC SURFACE
> .......................v .......v
> .......+ -----><----- - + - -----><----- +
> Ionosphere Ocean Capacitive Coupling above Eye:
> Knowing that water vapor has a stronger dielectric constant is also
> necessary primer when talking about what you can pick up from the
> clouds, electrically, in terms of the patterns that are occurring.
> But let's keep it simple. Opposites attract. So a static field of
> positive voltages will attract negative--and if you are coupling
> ionosphere to ocean, if the ionosphere is negative, the ocean will
> experience magnetic flux that brings positive voltages to the
> surface. How the ocean and ionosphere couple, or connect from a
> capacitive description depends on the charges, the area of
> the "plates" and the dielectric between the "plates". Now, I
> I simplify, but there is a huge difference between how the fields
> the ionosphere and on the ocean surface couple between air with
> and air with air. About an 80 times difference. And BTW when ice
> crystals are involved, there may even be more complexity (which
> to how life could have a very strong impact on what is going one)
> that the ice forms little mini capacitors that can behave here much
> like doping in an amplifying transistor. So let's keep it simple
> the moment--there is a huge difference between water and air as a
> dielectric, and since phase change energies cumulated over a large
> area will bring relative energies and organize that area thermally,
> you couple electrical and thermal, electrical and Boyle's laws.
> So, with this background, let's revisit Prof. Kassin's comments:
> "there is a remarkable connection between the electron density
> redistribution problem recently studied in experimental plasma
> This gets to electrostatics. Recall that the same signs repel and
> positive and negative charges attract one another.
> "The plasma experiment involves the creation of a confined pure
> elecron plasma in a cylindrical trap, with a uniform axial magnetic
> field providing radial confinement."
> Since water has a relatively much stronger dielectric constant
> compared to air, just over the eye of a hurricane, the charges in
> ionosphere will couple with the oceans--and you have in essance the
> very same trap as in the plasma experiment. Please tell me if you
> cannot follow this, and I will explain it further to you and draw
> more schematics for you.
> "Once produced the confined plasma evolves due to the drift flow,
> which is determied by the cross product of the electrical and
> magnetic fields (i.e., E * B drift).The drift flow is two
> in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder. Since the
> velocity changes the electron density according to an equation
> identical to the inviscid from of the voticity equation (3.4) and
> since the electron density is related to the Lapacian of the
> electrostatic potentical, the two dimensional equations for the
> evolution of the electron plasma are isomorphic with the two-
> dimensional Euler equations for inviscid incompressible flow
> (electron density vorticity and electrostatic potential
> streamfunction). Peurrung and Fajans (1993), Huang and Driscoll
> (1994), Fine et al. (1995). "
> Now, let's talk about air flows. Inviscid incompressible flow
> equations don't always calculate out neatly:
> We cannot always predict when such flows should be regarded as
> viscous and must be guided by experimental observation and
> The problem as I see it as the EMFs act on the cloud microphysics
> flows become viscous and Euler's equations are not helpful. But
> conceptually and basically, if at a point pressure is high, air
> to expand away, low, air wants to be drawn in. So a low pressure
> point will chase a high pressure point, just like a negative charge
> will chase a positive charge. High and low pressure areas in the
> oceans have electrical properties in that high pressures bring
> positive voltages to ground and couple to electrons to the oceans
> surface, which elongates forming ice crystals, whereas over
> convective regions ice forms more symetically and capactivie
> couplings are prevented by the strong dielectric of water compared