<b>Ophelia post mort: (Do not read if you are an apologist for
corporate fossil fuels</b>
Hurricane Ophelia churned and stalled along the coast of Florida,
stair stepped, and then stalled and churned along the Carolina
coasts, the eyewall running ashore over the Outer Banks, making it a
landfalling hurricane. Then it sort of stair stepped again along New
England and the eyewall was gone--it was extra tropical at best and
it sped off north and landfell into Canada as a tropical storm. In a
word, not much of a threat to anyone. Meanwhile, Tony Blair has
given up on Kyoto, a move long expected since he sold out to
employment with the Carlyle Group. And here in the United States,
Chris Landsea has quit the IPCC and some others are writing skeptical
papers on tropical storm statistics casting some doubt on the impacts
of human activity. But these things are based on ignorance.
So let's look at some history to compare Ophelia with.
From that website:
"Roger Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center
for Science and Technology Policy Research, agrees. In a forthcoming
paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society he
analyzes the damage caused by hurricanes that have hit the U.S. since
1900. Taking into account tremendous population growth along
coastlines he finds no trend of increasing damage from hurricanes.
"I don't think you could find any hurricane scientist that would be
willing to make the statement that the hurricanes of last year or
Katrina are caused by global warming," he told Denver's Rocky
MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel IS a scientist and stirred up a
Category Five controversy with his recent letter in Nature claiming
there's no trend in the frequency of hurricanes but "future warming
may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone [hurricane]
destructive potential." "
A hurricane Category 5 happened on Sept. 19, 1938, instead of Sept.
21. Average speed 161 mph.
It could have caused the destruction mentioned.
In this following link there is a map for hurricanes paths from 1930
to 1940. The path for 1938 shows a hit in the New England area.
In this table
the year 1938 appears with a "normalized after correction for
inflation" destruction costs of $20.057 billion.
Now let me preface my remarks by stating clearly I am NOT A WARMER
from CO2 as a green house gas. I think that the forcing from CO2 is
ELECTRICAL. And in that context the moon or sun forcings, which I
think are electrical, and then the discussion of the Little Ice Age
(the rage about the hockey stick), I think it is important to
consider that the Keeling Whorf period is 1,800 years on the moon,
and the sun spot observations occurred over a smaller period. See:
So it would appear just looking at climatology we have doubled the
amplitude of the Little Ice Age cycle and halved its frequency. So,
yes, Bob, I think colder is coming. Twice as fast and as hard. The
danger being instability. The cold body of earth, so to speak,
becoming room temperature.
Consider that if ice starts to build up on the land from the oceans,
the oceans less fresh water become more saline, and then as more
saline, more conductive. That means as more inputs come from the sun,
these inputs are communicated more conductively.
The conservatives argue, chaos was, chaos is, burn fossil fuels. But
with a living earth, the problem is much different and much more
complicated. It is modulation was, modulation is, sustain a living
earth. It is a much more difficult and complex problem than the
conservative propagandists and paid 'scientists' would have you
think, and we are starting to get hit over the head with it. This is
global 'fever' now, but the illness, the defects in feedback loops is
The corporate state spins misconceptions and statistics as Masetti is
discussing. However, if you look at the 1938 storm specifically,
knowing the mechanism, a different frightening picture appears, even
as you look at Ophelia.
1938 had up to what we had here this year--the letter 'F' or
Franklin. Franklin was in JULY. We are in peak season now, worried
about Rita and the Texas coast. Stories of the Arctic melting as
never before, Glacier National Park having no glaciers, and Alaska
melting, tundra thawing, and Alaska forrests tilting in the melt like
Bush on a youthful drunken binge.
As to damage statistics, again, without appreciation of underlying
mechanism of these storms, the statistics are very misleading.
Because these storms are electrical in nature, it may well have been
a solar flaring event in that year that specifically sparked a storm
to high organization in the form of a catagory 5 storm and then led
that organization straight north, which happened to be northeastern
high dollar properties. However, even now you cannot be sure that
there were not local hydrology changes at that time which would have
made the region more conductive and suseptible for the storm to both
explode and turn in that direction. Consider that the CCC was very
activity during the time of the New Deal and in particular there were
many public works projects on rivers.
But the fact remains, that the solar inputs, the moon roiling inputs,
have DEPENDANT relationships with CO2 because CO2 impacts
CONDUCTIVITY. So as long as the researchers are doing their
statistics without care of cause, they fail to capture the forcings
involved. Those forcings have greatest danger in climate
instability. Presently we are seeing us rising, per the Keeling
Whorf paper on the Little Ice Age, twice as fast and twice as hard to
the peak. And because when the glaciers are relaid the oceans will
become more saline, IMHO we will fall twice as hard and fast possibly
to a neo glacial.
That's what the conservatives will have on their souls. All based on
The idea that a 1938 hurricane would behave in a distructive manner
racing straight north and the fact that there have been fewer
landfalling storms in the NE is in itself a clue to the EMF character
of these storms. The melting in the Arctic, Greenland, is well
documented, and impacts salinity, and, therefore, conductivity of
these regions. You would have a changing pace of the Gulf Stream
from relatively dense, salty water sinking, and the draw north of the
Gulf Stream would be different--perhaps farther reaching north. And
then, as I mentioned, local river change. It is well documented at
that time some of the problems of pollution with the Great Lakes at
the time. The bottom line is this--it's electrical and Lansea's and
others arguments about economics are highly flawed and decietful.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair in England clearly has seen impact from higher
CO2 increasing conductivity but the short term condition of the
melting glacier waters decreasing salinity, and, therefore,
decreasing conductivity. So the regional change in England does not
appear to be troublesome. But it is, as the neo glacial will be
sparked from storms as it runs the other way. Geological history
clearly shows that these neo glacial storms last merely 10 years!
That's it. You are talking about the Day After Tomorrow, and I am
giving you straight out the mechenism.
We live in a day when 25% of all species of plants and animals have
gone extinct. Because of us. And whether you consider yourself
conservative or liberal, this is something, as Art Bell says, you
should at least notice.