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

2006 Hurricane Forecast

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    The big concern will be a catagory 5 storm to south Florida much like the 1935 storm, and multiple storms to Texas. The year will be above average and the
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 28, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The big concern will be a catagory 5 storm to south Florida much like
      the 1935 storm, and multiple storms to Texas. The year will be above
      average and the drought will deepen in the central and southwestern
      United States.

      1. La Nina

      a. The climatology isn't that big of a deal:

      http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ENSO/enso.pl?
      output=2&variable=cdprcp®ion=all&event=e&season=sum&type=a


      La Nina predicts this summer very dry in East Coast Texas, wet in the
      Carolinas, dry in South Florida, particularly southeast coastal
      Florida. Very dry the upper midwest, excluding Northern Minnesota,
      and wet in a band from New Orleans to the Carolina Coasts, excluding
      the Florida Panhandle.

      Winter anomalies are dry in the coasts of Gulf States--particularly
      Florida.

      b. Now for the technical stuff.

      About 5 years ago I was a stay at home dad. My daughter was less
      than one and I had only a couple of cases--I was working but with my
      own business as it was I could set my own hours. The better half had
      to work more traditional hours and so it was better for me to take
      care of our baby. I had hours and hours of free time when my
      daughter slept. I was incredibly bored. Watching paint dry kind of
      bored. So, naturally, I began to stare at paint drying. Well,
      actually, I started looking at cloud patterns on TWC and then I
      graduated to looking at SST anomaly patterns and see if I could make
      a prediction what would happen next. You have to be in the right
      mood for it and have to have the time and especially have to be a
      hurricane nut like I am to do this, but I was also reading papers
      like this:


      http://jedac.ucsd.edu/PROJECTS/PUBLISHED/ACW_IMPACT_ENSO/ACW_impact_EN
      SO.pdf

      It was about this time that I began to think of the large scale
      electrical patterns on earth as causative of a phenomenon like ENSO.
      These ideas became refined, of course. I would like to teach some of
      the things I learned.

      Keep in mind during the winter in the northern hemisphere when we all
      think about 'La Nina' or 'El Nino', the southern hemisphere is tilted
      toward the sun. Plus in its eliptical orbit it is closest to the
      sun. However, because the southern hemisphere has less land to ocean
      compared to the northern hemisphere, this added solar energy to the
      southern hemisphere does not translate relatively speaking to large
      amounts of displacement currents from lightning strikes.

      However, the south magnetic pole has closing isobars that leads to a
      very close connection between ocean and space weather--a kind of
      climate sensitivity to conductivity conditions, including SSTs.
      Let's look at what this means:

      [img]
      http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/a4/750x750_antarcti
      ca_m.gif[/img]

      See where the south magnetic pole is? This is really important--the
      south magnetic pole is no where near the geographical pole. Also
      keep in mind that the south magnetic pole of the earth's magnetic
      field is a north pole.

      That's because the bar magnets that you use in a compass has a
      magnetic 'north' pole--and since opposits attract--it points at the
      south magnetic pole of the earth. That means the true magnetic
      NORTH of the earth's magnetic field is the south pole shown here.

      This becomes important if want to describe specifically conductivity
      patterns by applying some simple vector math descriptions of
      electrical induction. The next step is to see what the moving ocean
      currents are. In the Southern Ocean, a high pressure exists over the
      land, as heat is reflected off the ice into space. The cold air
      subsists and coriolis causes it to drop and right turn. This leads
      to a wind around the island that creates a persistant ocean current
      in the Southern Ocean, called the circumpolar current:

      [img]http://www.oceansonline.com/images/currents.gif%5b/img]

      Notice that because the magnetic pole in the Southern Ocean is not
      centered relative to the ocean currents, the direction of moving
      conductor of ocean currents relative to this magnetic pole will have
      vectors in opposing directions to each other. Applying Fleming's
      right hand rule:

      [img]
      http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/images/c00
      984.jpg[/img]

      In technical terms, if the subject is a large scale electrical
      capacitive coupling that impacts cloud microphysics, what we're
      talking about with the moving oceans relative to the earth's magnetic
      field is induction values, which leads to reactance values, which
      leads to impedance values, which then leads to the nature and extent
      of the capacitive coupling. In other words, to the way clouds trap
      or release heat. This leads to a very interesting result. Because
      the pole is NOT centered, one side of the circumpolar current will
      have a different, opposing even, impedance value than the other.
      That means if there is a uniform ELECTRICAL change, such as a greater
      applied voltage, say, from space weather inputted to the climate
      system, or even different SSTs, one region cold anomaly and therefore
      less conductive and the other warm anomaly, therefore more
      conductive, you can find overall significant climate trend in the
      Arctic Ocean amplified from a pattern of SSTs that you might not find
      interesting without appreciating the electrical cloud microphysics
      complexity. In the winter time, this pattern can be amplified to
      create in the tropical oceans patterns that then significantly impact
      the global electrical circuit. The concept works both ways--if there
      is a reading of an electrical current behavior, direction of ocean
      current can be inferred. See:

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

      ++++++++++++++

      What if the low current signals from solar winds were directed by the
      closed isobars of the magnetic poles and they were AMPLIFIED in such
      a manner that both created the strikes in a
      pattern that made for induction that alters cirrus in such a pattern
      as would be expressed in Lindzen's iris AND would create, by
      induction from top to bottom, the very earth EMF that creates the
      attraction of the solar wind signal in the first place? Thus, the
      magnetic poles would be located, excepting their transient yet
      stabilized behavior from the metal double core of the inner earth,
      near the geographical poles simply because convection patterns as an
      amplification would be a source of noise against the signal.

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

      Let me say it this way, because everyone knows my EMF views in
      defining it are contrary to conventional wisdom. As many of you
      know, ENSO was originally defined by fishermen, which therefore gave
      the event not just a SST context but a BIOLOGICAL one. . . .

      Last WINTER was La Nina.

      There were SOI reversals, but mostly now the SOI is running
      positive. The SSTs are cold anomaly in the significant portions of
      the tropical Pacific. IMHO these reversals both cause large EMF with
      a phenomenon known as back EMF, but also the wind shifts stir the
      waters and that impacts conductivity as turbulance impacts the
      chemistry and hence the conductivity of the
      waters. Again, if you have the time, and even bottle of beer and a
      conductivity meter, you can see how merely measuring conductivity
      after you stir your beer a little causes the conductivity measures to
      dance around. And you can measure conductivity of salt water, too,
      changing between warm saltwater and cold--not the conductivity
      differences amount to about one percent drop in resistance for every
      increase in degF.

      Likewise, a wind reversal is going to produce an opposite induction
      influence on large scale low frequency waves of EMF that move from
      ionosphere to cloud to ground and back relative to the main currents
      in the Pacific, the North and South Equatorials, and the Equatorial.

      I am not, as you may recall, not a big fan of the concept of "shear"
      in describing what upper level winds do in relation to making
      Atlantic tropical storm activity less possible during El Nino, and
      conversely decreasing shear during La Nina. . . . That is because
      if SSTs and bio and wind conditions exist for a true La Nina, the
      pattern in the Pacific is such that EMF instabilities can occur in
      such patterns that support capacitive couplings and powering voltages
      in the Atlantic--simple as that, and the upper level winds are
      dominated by the EMF patterns, not the other way around.


      d. It is now worth talking about the Harris et al Nature paper. Why
      this paper is flawed to look at climate change without considerations
      for the electrical complexities. Why was comparing the 1970 La Nina
      and the 1998 El Nino like comparing apples and oranges?

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

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

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

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

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

      The Harris et al research is nothing more that data that supports
      exactly this.

      Now, comparing this electrical condition of the 1970 La Nina with the
      1997 El Nino is OF COURSE going to give different cirrus behavior--we
      have the coldest anomaly central Pacific waters to the west--and the
      warmest near the coast of Peru. To the west, induction against cirrus
      along the Equatorial will be reduced simply by temperature--as colder
      anomaly means less conductive anomaly. But then to the central and
      eastern side of the Equatorial the biological activity fed by
      upwelling is reduced. Those waters become biologically inactive. I
      myself observed this on Catalina Island over the Christmas Holiday in
      1997--Catalina Island is off the coast of Los Angeles in Southern
      California. I spoke to glass bottom boat tour guide about the
      stunted kelp and the big fish like yellow tail seen in the region--
      looking for food well far north of their proper range. I saw with my
      own eyes what was reported and this started my quest to understand
      just what was going on. In this situation, the Equatorial is either
      cold or biologically depleted, even if those waters were warm anomaly
      such that one would think that they would induct against cirrus.

      Understand, too, that when you see the warm anomalies off the coast
      of Peru--they are just that--anomalies. The warmest waters overall
      remain in the Western Pacific due to coriolis turning the gyres and
      the warmest surface waters west. This makes induction favoring fair
      weather in the warmest current, the Equatorial, much more difficult
      than during La Nina conditions, simply from a conductivity
      standpoint. There is less fair weather, then, and the voltages of 250
      per meter to ground. The fair weather zone shrinks and places like
      Peru and California are able to produce surface low organizations, or
      low frequency large scale ion movements that include convective or
      negative to ground voltages. The hydrology varies and further feeds
      back biological EMF conditions of less resistance that enhance the
      condition. Meanwhile, the North and South Equatorials are able to
      enhance large areas of cirrus as they warm. . .

      MIT's Prof. R. S. Lindzen et al AMS article: "Does the Earth Have an
      Adaptive Infrared Iris?" is available online. Lindzen's paper on iris
      is available at http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-
      abstract&issn=1520-0477&volume=082&issue=03&page=0417 for the
      abstract, and the
      link "print version" leads to a PDF of the full article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Tom Wigley, Dennis Hartman et al, Wielicki, have all pretty much
      destroyed Lindzen's extrapolations. BUT, what hasn't occurred is a
      square addressing of the Lindzen DATA--as in causal mechanism for
      what was seen looking at the electrical cloud microphysics complexity.

      e. ENSO and volcanic activity. Another extremely important area of
      research is also been considerably dumbed down by the failure to look
      at the electrical complexity in cloud microphysics behaviors. For
      instance, climate experts from the University of Virginia found that
      volcanoes are strongly correlated with El Nino.

      Lead researcher Brad Adams looked at tree rings, dust preserved in
      polar ice cores and coral growth, then compared them with the dates
      of major known eruptions since 1649. His team discovered significant
      El Nino like occurances just after large volcanic eruptions in the
      tropics. His findings, published in Nature, say that a major eruption
      doubles the chance that an El Nino will occur the following winter
      due to the billions f otons of fine volcanic ash that linger in the
      upper atmospher, reflecting back heat. I myself would point squarely
      at the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and then the 1998 El Nino. It should
      be no surprise, then, in the absence of any significant volcanic
      activity that the earth has not seen a significant El Nino since the
      one in 1998.

      Unfortunately, while the correlative findings are certainly correct
      and predictable, their conclusion is more bad science that ignores
      the electrical and biological forcings at play in cloud dynamics.
      Volcanoes release huge amounts of SOx emissions. That is a chemical
      that reduces the phase change temperature of cirrus, much like salt
      on your driveway in the cold winter reduces icing. Why is that
      important? What are cirrus? Cirrus are tiny ice crystals in the air
      typically above strong convection areas, where rising clouds freeze.
      They are important in cloud dynamics because huge amounts of heat are
      trapped underneath them. The differences between cirrus
      present or not can mean a difference up to 250 watts per meter
      squared over what heat is lost to space or absorbed below.

      These clouds--and the heat that is trapped underneath them--is
      modulated electrically and biologically. SOx emissions are a chaotic
      input that the biosphere modulates, but interestingly, the emissions
      directly impact the heat trapping, initially, by COOLING things.
      Changing cloud dynamics--appreciate that Hurricane Andrew occurred in
      an atmosphere full of SOx from Mt. Pinatubo, and later a Hurricane
      Bret landfell on Texas with the exact central pressure--but caused
      little damage. Microphysics changes in clouds can result in surface
      winds of greatest intensity existing at different levels. The storms
      are just as interesting and powerful--but their wind character
      different. This is why Katrina, for instance, was the wave mover it
      was yet had lower surface winds at landfall.

      The coolings have been well observed directly from the Mt. Pinatubo
      eruption by sats. Dogma suggests that the cooling is largely particle
      related--the albedo from the dust. This is largely not correct. What
      really occurs is that with the cirrus phase change temperature
      dropping, just like salt on your driveway in the winter, ice won't
      form. Heat isn't then, trapped as well. Fair weather begins to
      dominate globally and a short term cooling commences because heat
      generally escapes more out into space.

      That cooling ends for two reasons. First, it ends because the cooling
      counter intuitively causes warming. That is because electrically, the
      isobars of the earth close near its geographical poles, and it is
      there that cloud behaviors might be organized by the weak signals of
      solar electrical particles. However, if there is convection from heat
      near the magnetic poles, the electrical activity from the convection
      is more powerful than the signal from the sun, and hence cloud
      behaviors become more chaotic and won't trap heat in a more patterned
      and effective manner. It's a signal noise issue, much like you might
      with your cell phone if you move farther away from a signal sender
      yet get a better reception if near you is a telephone pole giving you
      static. When the waters near the poles cool, they are less
      conductive, less able to bring nearby convection, and cloud patterns
      emerge from the solar electrical inputs, even at the low currents
      they arrive with.

      There is then the biological feedback. Volcanoes eventually wash
      their particles into the oceans
      and cause sulfur loving algae to respond. In the West tropical
      Pacific, that means inceases in conductivity where normally the area
      is biologically depleted. It also means less of other kinds of
      microbial activity seen relative to upwelling in the tropical E. Pac
      associated with La Nina, because these microbes associated with
      sulfur consumption in their metabolism will uptake nutrients in
      patterns that cause reductions in their populations, especially as
      currents reverse and upwellings end their required chemistries. In
      short, the electrical patterns change, biologically, and effect how
      cirrus behave and trap heat. This then increases the probability for
      a following El Nino. The absence of volcanic activity has lead not
      surprisingly to the opposing electrical condition--La Nina.

      2. The opposition to current flow in DC circuits is resistance. The
      back and forth current flow in AC circuits through reactive
      components-- capacitors or inductors, oppose the change in the
      current over time. This opposition is called reactance; impedance
      measures the combined effect of resistance and reactance. All three
      quantities are measured in ohms. One ohm is the resistance,
      reactance, or impedance that requires a potential difference of one
      volt per ampere of current.

      Given two parallel conductors, infinitely long and having negligible
      cross section at one meter apart in a perfect vacuum. One ampere is
      the current flowing in these conductors that has between the wires a
      force of 0.2 micronewtons per meter of length. A force of one newton
      will accelerate a mass of one kilogram at the rate of one meter per
      second per second.

      The other electrical units are all defined in terms of the ampere.

      For instance, one ampere represents a current flow of one coulomb of
      charge per second. One ampere of current results from a potential
      distribution of one volt per ohm of resistance, or from a power
      production rate of one watt per volt of potential. And electron
      passes by in a second? 3.336 × 10-10 coulombs. That's how you tie in
      the solar winds--what they mean in terms of electrical current.

      What is important to notice here is that these electrical
      descriptions boil down to FORCE by definition!

      Now, as I have said before and will repeat, a tropical storm can be
      described in terms of static fields and Coulomb's law:

      F = k*Q1*Q2/d2

      Q1 = the quantity of charge on object 1 (in Coulombs)

      Q2 = the quantity of charge on object 2 (in Coulombs)

      d = the distance of separation between the two objects (in meters).

      The symbol k is a proportionality constant known as the Coulomb's law
      constant.

      k depends on the material that the charged objects are immersed in.

      Air

      k = 9.0 x 109 N • m2 / C2.

      Water

      k = 7.0 x 108 N • m2 / C2. .

      k dimensional analysis is such that when substituted into the
      equation the units on charge (Coulombs) and the units on distance
      (meters) will be canceled, leaving a Newton as the unit of force.

      The Coulomb's law equation provides an accurate description of the
      force between two objects whenever the objects act as point charges.

      I bring this k value up because it is related to the dielectric
      constant I have been talking about. This is really basic stuff. For
      instance the dielectric constant of water is about 80, air about 1,
      and very cold water, like the water at a cloud top of a hurricane--
      about 88. These values for air, water and ice water later turn out
      extremely significant in terms of the behaviors of clouds in an
      electrical event.


      Let's take a look at the unseen--the electrical organization behind
      the a tropical storm:

      ELECTRON VAN ALLEN BELT (charges are relative to each other and
      partially held by the flux lines of the earth magnetic field)


      ....................+..............+
      .....................\............/
      ......................\........../
      ........................v .......v
      ........................^......^
      .........................\..../
      ..........................\../
      ..........................-.-
      ..+ -----><----- - + - -----><----- +
      ...........................-
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................v
      ...........................^
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................+

      PROTON VAN ALLEN BELT (partially held by the flux lines of the earth
      magnetic field)

      ....................-..............-
      .....................\............/
      ......................\........../
      .......................v .......v
      ........................^......^
      .........................\..../
      ..........................\../
      ..........................+.+
      ...- -----><----- + - + -----><----- -
      ...........................+
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................v
      ...........................^
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................-


      UPPER IONOSPHERE

      ....................+..............+
      .....................\............/
      ......................\........../
      .......................v .......v
      ........................^......^
      .........................\..../
      ..........................\../
      ..........................-.-
      ..+ -----><----- - + - -----><----- +
      ...........................-
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................v
      ...........................^
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................+


      LOWER IONOSPHERE

      ....................-..............-
      .....................\............/
      ......................\........../
      .......................v .......v
      ........................^......^
      .........................\..../
      ..........................\../
      ..........................+.+
      ...- -----><----- + - + -----><----- -
      ...........................+
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................v
      ...........................^
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................-


      ATLANTIC SURFACE (warm conductive Gulf Stream)

      ....................+..............+
      .....................\............/
      ......................\........../
      .......................v .......v
      ........................^......^
      .........................\..../
      ..........................\../
      ..........................-.-
      ..+ -----><----- - + - -----><----- +
      ...........................-
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................v
      ...........................^
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................+

      ATLANTIC SUB-SURFACE

      ....................-..............-
      .....................\............/
      ......................\........../
      .......................v .......v
      ........................^......^
      .........................\..../
      ..........................\../
      ..........................+.+
      ...- -----><----- + - + -----><----- -
      ...........................+
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................v
      ...........................^
      ...........................|
      ...........................|
      ...........................-


      Ionosphere to space Capacitive Coupling above Eye (not to scale):

      ............................-.-+-.- electron van Allen belt
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................+.+-+.+ Proton van Allen belt
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................-..+..- Upper ionosphere
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................+..-..+ Lower ionosphere
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      .......................***o*o*o*** Cloud level
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................-..+..- Ocean surface
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................v..v..v
      ............................^..^..^
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................|..|..|
      ............................+..-..+ Ocean sub surface

      Keep in mind a tropical storm MOVES. So the water in between Q1 and
      Q2 will change the FORCES of attraction between them as the k value
      of the air in the eye is much different than the k value in the cloud
      disk. This results in a horizontal vector that moves the field along.
      This movement is NOT 'free' and requires a force to move the current
      at a distance. The resistance is NOT along several paths including
      paths deeper in the oceans--it is on the surface because of the
      vertical vector holding the static charges together. So, the nature
      of the FORCES themselves contain both horizontal and vertical
      components, and that means that the movement of the electrons IS on
      the surface. It is actually common sense. The more ions, the better
      the field based on charged forces moves along. The less 'force'
      required for the static field to exist. And it is on the surface of a
      tropical storm where the low pressures and winds cause CO2 to come
      out of solution and then rise to that surface and run back to ion
      form--changing conductivities for periods that impact the cloud
      microphysics of the storm per the China paper:

      http://www.ichmt.org/abstracts/Vim-01/abstracts/04-01.pdf

      Increases in CO2 from fossil fuels increases ocean conductivity
      relative to tropical storms when surface low comes and winds and low
      pressure causes CO2 to come out of solution, bubble to the surface,
      chemically move back to ion form, and thereby increase surface
      conductivity relative to the capacitive couplings that organize cloud
      microphysics of tropical storms. Thisincreases these storm's
      intensities.

      Note that as solar winds and changes in the earth EMF occur, the
      organizations above the storm become distorted. Note at cloud level
      the 'o' denote mesovortices and the *** cloud disks. The cloud level
      has that higher k value which is self organized by the microphysics
      changes that occur in the DC fields per the China paper. Air at cloud
      level in the strong DC field cannot phase change so the air
      relatively cools and subsists. Air protected by the existing water
      content from the DC field finds water vapor diffusing to it and
      convection occurs with more symmetry and occurs explosively. That air
      warms with phase change energies added and it rises. That's why the
      surface low can exist--from the vacuum effect under those convecting
      clouds.

      Plus the thermodynamics problem of LIFE. How it can tend to disorder
      and then at the same time DAMPEN a living earth. Nucleotide complexes
      in cloud microphysics was the key, but because the oceans are too
      saline, the China paper modulations of clouds, causing them to become
      asymmetrical, can no longer occur today. Perhaps one of the biggest
      clues is implausible complexity of complete cells, but more that
      there are no fossil evidence of cells to go with early life chemical
      organizations which are found . . .

      Another schematic:

      +++++++ Ionosphere

      .~~~~ Super cooled cloud droplet in DC field
      (----) Negative ions
      (.......)
      (.......)
      (.......)
      (.......)
      (+++)
      .~~~~
      ------- Ocean with negative charges held in capacitive coupling

      Here is another attempt to help you visualize the cloud microphysics
      issue. Keep in mind, too, that the super cooled droplet, in a DC
      field, is not pure water. It is a mixture of many chemicals found in
      rainwater, which contains a pH of about 5.6, although the ion content
      in a tropical storm surely has a greater content of ocean salts. So
      these are the ions that will move in the DC field and change the
      parasol asymmetry as it freezes in the cloud.

      Now, what happens as convection occurs is not only does the water
      turn to ice but also water vapor is added to the droplet, and that
      addition occurs one molecule at a time. What may be overlooked by the
      meteorological community is that water itself is electrical. Weakly
      electrical, but electrical none the less. This electrical force is
      called van der Walls force. It's the idea that the hydrogen atoms
      will tend to lose their electron orbitals more easily than the oxigen
      atom. So it looks like this:

      Positive pole

      +.....+
      .H...H
      ...V
      ...O-


      Negative pole

      So if the super cooled water parasol is in a strong DC field, and the
      ions in the parasol start to move, the manner with which additional
      water molecules are added depend on that field, the chemistry in the
      parasol, including the size, shape, mass and charge of the ions.
      That's how DNA/RNA got the start toward intelligent design, because
      the nucleotides began to act both as model and feedback--in a
      massively parallel way, calculating toward a living earth.

      I want to make some assertions that are simple and easy to visualize,
      and those assertions come with some very profound implications.

      If you start out with the idea that a tropical storm offers IMPEDENCE
      to CURRENTS, than, and this is VERY important, than there is a POWER
      requirement. This is as basic to the study of electronics as ohm's
      law.

      That power is from lightning strikes. Those strikes move currents
      from ionosphere to ground, and provide the charges required to make
      the DC fields I have drawn above.

      Again, the implications are huge. For instance, it means that a
      hurricane could form in cold oceans (each degF decrease in SSTs
      offers 1 percent increase in resistances)--so long as there were
      sufficient lightning strikes to power the cloud microphysics changing
      capacitive coupling. So while you may think of a hurricane as
      something that only occurs in 80 degF plus ocean temperatures, they
      can occur in the Gulf Stream in the middle of the winter if there are
      huge strike totals in South America, Africa or Oz . . .

      ++++++++++++++++++++++


      3. The microbial conditions in the nearby oceans.

      Tehuano Winds Stir the Pacific Ocean

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?
      img_id=17187

      For larger image click :

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/Archive/Feb2006/Tehuan
      oCHL_AMO_2006041_lrg.jpg

      The Western Gulf of Mexico is warm, and therefore conductive. River
      flow is relatively low, so salinity is increased. And there is
      significant bloom activity south of these warm, salty waters in the
      Southwestern Gulf of Mexico.

      4. AMO. Overall, the AMO points to warmer, conductive waters but
      there should be a concern that warmer oceans melt hydrates, hydrates
      which have less sedimentation to bring about stability. There has
      already been significant offshore siesmic activity, probably
      associated with hydrate mud slide activity in the Gulf off the
      Mississippi coast. At some point, the electrical feedback from
      hydrates decreases with the rising Gulf temperatures, and that is the
      mechanism for concern of regional drought. The AMO is the basis for
      my model year of 1934.

      See:

      http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq_fig2.php

      And:


      http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1934/index.html

      The early storms of 1934 shown above are incredible to look at in the
      context of what we are looking at this year already with significant
      drought forming in the same places of the Dust Bowl of the early
      1930s and again, points to a feedback from hydrate fields. See:

      http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

      [img]http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/drmon.gif%5b/img]


      The location of the hydrates are in the W.GOM and off the Carolina
      coasts:

      http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/l/alt198/methanehydrates.htm

      http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/a/l/alt198/map.jpg


      5. The QBO.

      A good model year for a La Nina and a positive QBO with favorable,
      warm conditions in the Gulf of Mexico is 1969:

      http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Correlation/qbo.data

      =======JAN-----FEB-----MAR-----APR------MAY----JUNE---JULY----AUG-----
      SEP-----OCT-----NOV-----DEC

      1969 -8.58 -4.43 -1.50 3.98 8.18 9.35 9.08 9.78
      9.74 9.75 7.34 5.00

      Now we flip back to positive during the heart of the hurricane season.

      http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1969/index.html

      Hurricane CAMILLE (14-22 AUG) and Hurricane DEBBIE (14-25 AUG) are
      storms that are moving west in tandom, again, essentially along the
      ITCZ, with a little of north movement that is consistant with
      thermodynamics pushing toward colder and less organized air, BUT the
      movement is essentially west in conjunction with the QBO. Camille is
      one of the all time great storms. Appreciate what the QBO 'IS'. It
      is an ion wind that is formed by inductive processes that describe
      the overall state of the earth's magnetic field, and then, and this
      is the important part, it then describes how the ionosphere moves in
      flows. Over the tropics, UV light strikes O2 molecules and splits
      them into ions. The ions then will MOVE relative to the electrical
      fields of the earth, and specific movements will result in more or
      less favorable conditions for capacitive couplings to occur.
      Historically, then, all that is said by this is with a positive QBO
      couplings of west moving major hurricanes are favored. In the EAST
      PACIFIC, the La Nina and the QBO did not support a big season:

      http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/e_pacific/1969/index.html

      Very little going on in the EPAC. Why? Again, colder SSTs in the
      Eastern tropical Pacific means that the region is less conductive.
      QBO movements really don't allow a coupling moving east, so a recurve
      into western North America is electrically not favorable.

      6. The satellites show 3 decades of ice loss in the Arctic. This has
      SIGNIFICANT ELECTRICAL meaning when considering more distant model
      years, such as Camille in 1969 or even the proximate analogy year of
      1935 storm of 1935 to hit South Florida.

      http://nsidc.org/sotc/images/extent_dep.gif

      http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

      http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_projects_image_10.html

      Why? Because in particular as the season moves on--late in November,
      and as we have seen, even in December and this year in early January
      and the ice is clear in the Arctic, strikes in SOUTH America can
      power displacement currents in the North Atlantic. Storms like Vince
      of last year occur, and overall remnant storms, like Wilma once she
      went east, can cause damage. However, this year, the SOI is
      positive, so the direction of a Vince moving east will be difficult
      to sustain from the perspective of coupling from the ionosphere.
      From the perspective of the ocean, however, the more open Arctic
      increases the probability of storms and especially over a longer
      season--appreciate that the Arctic ice minimum is about now and its
      maximum is later into the fall.

      Some think that the present conditions may lead to a storm
      landfalling in the NE. I disagree.

      Note that there was a big storm in 1938. This is different than 1934
      as a model year.

      It is true that there are the methane hydrate fields all along the
      east coast.

      Major changes from 1938 include the ever decreasing ice in the Arctic.

      There were no significant microbial blooms so far reported along the
      NE coast, and if anything a storm like Ophelia really churned
      sediments there. I would also be very interested in studies on land
      reclaimation, the sanding on the beaches, and local hydrology changes
      in addition to monitoring drought data--but that would be more for
      the upcoming year.

      Now, we did see that nor easter connected with huge strike numbers in
      South America--same strike displacement current that brought a storm
      near Oz in January. But the problem is if there is a similar
      displacement current in say September, where is the pathway of least
      resistance to a place where a capacitive coupling might occur? This
      is all relative, I know, but there is a lot of Arctic ice meltwater
      and fresh water capping and then capacitive couplings in the Arctic
      occurring right now, and I am not so sure that the hydrate fields on
      the NE . . . face the same kind of subsistance of the Mississippi
      delta and fossil fuel firtilizing issues that the NE does. No way.
      You don't read about dead zones off the New England coast. Plus the
      changes to the Pacific high, which I think are starting to show up
      with permanency given increases of CO2 and the relative dilution of
      the oceans there, make the jet stream ride higher north and come down
      farther south.

      Really, my thinking . . . where I consider my forecast more
      speculative, is whether or not we would have another Ivan like storm
      to the Carolinas, in which case it's a possible major landfalling
      scenario. That would be supported by the deeper drought in the
      Carolinas, and what that would mean to them there--the hydrology, the
      blooms, and the hydrate fields. But the other side of it is the QBO
      running positive and the La Nina, combined with, believe it or not, a
      record hot reading that Sanabal pointed out in Florida--which itself
      gave yet another indication that the model year 1934 was more
      appropriate (1935 mark broken). There is no microbial bloom activity
      seen off the Carolinas like there was the year of the heat wave to
      Europe when Ivan hit. No black tide that I am aware of.


      http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=82741

      Interesting discussion at storm 2k.

      My take on Bob 1991 is that it's a Pintubo storm--meaning that the
      cloud micorphysics are impacted by the SOx emissions from that
      volcano. We are in a low SOx environiment.

      http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/img_pinatubo.html

      Andrew had a similar feel. The SOx is an ion that gets in the super
      cooled droplets in DC fields and really causes the microphysics to
      change--the ice to freeze with even more distortion, as positive ions
      migrate one way and negative the other. This then changes phase
      change rates and then how collectively clouds subsist or convect.

      http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/1985/index.html

      The 1985 storm Gloria followed a number of storms that caused there
      to be no conductive place for landfall of a CV storm except farther
      north, IMHO. There was also an erruption of a volcano in Iceland in
      1984--but that was nothing like Pinatubo.




      7. Increases in CO2 from human activity.

      Increases in global levels of CO2 have profound implications because
      what occurs with a surface low is carbonation comes out of solution
      from the depressurization and roiling of the winds. When it does
      come out of solution, the CO2 rises to the surface and then runs back
      chemical equillibrium balances back to ion form. This, then, for the
      time that a storm passes over the oceans, further organizes a storm
      at its center as the ion counts on the surface increase momentarily
      and hence increases the surface conductivities where capacitive
      couplings occur. The increased ability for the ocean to recharge its
      CO2 and impact cloud microphysics is not uniform. In particular it
      occurs moreso in less saline waters, in the North Pacific. My
      observations is this has increased the nature and extent of the
      summertime Pacific high off the northwest coast. This tends to bring
      the jet stream more north, and it is no surprise, then, that some of
      the more profound observations of climate change are seen in Alaska,
      which has seen melting tundra, forrest fires, and unusual disease
      patterns in recent years. The jet then brings Arctic air south, and
      there is a feedback of the very displacement electrical currents that
      seasonally support the Pacific high--as well as the Bermuda high.

      Anytime you compress air--a high pressure, there is a heating that
      occurs. So, microphysics changes from electrical changes THEN lead
      to temperature differences. This is something to think about in
      terms of drought and heat waves that matched the warming AMO
      conditions following the active year of 1933.

      Conclusion:

      There are two things that make my message here unique.

      One is that hurricanes are largely about ELECTRICAL organizations.

      Two is that the biosphere modulates climate, and makes it predictable
      as a dampened oscillater, which is profound since most considerations
      of what climate change is about focuses on the chaotic oscillator
      behaviors of it.

      The electrical part no one gets because it's difficult material. For
      instance, say we were talking about Fleming's right hand rule and
      electrical impacts on cloud microphysics in the Southern Oceans. The
      south pole is a north pole. The convention for electron flow is
      positive flow goes to the second finger. And the magnetic pole is not
      nearly at the geographical south location, making the circumpolar
      ocean currents on either side of Antarctica opposing inducting
      conductive bodies. This is just simple hand rule stuff--not even
      touching the vector math of Maxwell that takes 2nd year calculas.
      Then you add the complexity that warmer SSTs means more conductive--
      which may mean one thing if the induction is one way and the exact
      opposite if the induction direction is the other. Then you contend
      with the closing isobars, and the insulation of the atmosphere, the
      diectric constant of clouds, the changing solar electrical input, and
      on and on and on. Extremely complex.

      The second issue with me I think is confounded by our culture's
      religious values. Listen to any IDer they are a reminder of the
      crystalized ignorance in our society in this regard. Someone recently
      suggested to me it would be a dream to develope a cure for the AIDs
      virus in Africa--but what IS a virus? Mmm? How is a virus like a
      massively replicated nucleotide complex that used to regulate cloud
      microphysics by moving by size, shape, mass and charge inside super
      cooled droplets in a storm like a virus? What kind of symbiotic
      relationship formed with cellular life to continue to support such a
      modulation? What IS sexual reproduction, for another example? Mmm?
      How is the male spirm like a virus? Tough questions, I think, for the
      religious IDer. But until you start to talk about methanogens and
      hydrates, sulfur loving microbes and volcanoes, algea blooms, and
      even diatoms, which are found acting as nucleation particles in
      hurricanes, and impact, for instance, the dust content from Africa
      from dried lakes there which blow into the CV ITCZ, you are going to
      miss significant conductivity influences of a living earth.

      Since this is a low SOx year, again, the danger is decreased for
      surface wind damage, relative, say, to a Hurricane Andrew on
      landfall. That said, the danger, particularly to Central America, is
      the flooding and stalling events, like Stan.

      The storms will have a tendency to do best moving west. The most
      dangerous storm will be to South Florida like the 1935 catagory 5.

      Texas will see more than one storm including a major storm.

      Due to hydrate outgassings, and sediment stirred coastlines, such as
      off the NE Yucatan and areas struck by Katrina and Rita, and the
      changes AFTER the tidal wave, discussed last year, the year will not
      be nearly as active as last year.

      16 named storms. But there will be 7 major storms. Two or three
      will reach catagory 5 status.

      Storms will do best when they move west.

      There will be a 'twin' storm this year. Meaning two storms next to
      each other--moving west.

      Carolinas sees a hurricane landfalling but NOT a major.

      The NE CONUS will not see anything significant, but the Canadian
      Maritines will see one tropical storm, but not a major.

      New Orleans will get a non-major storm early in the season per 1934
      model year.

      The most interesting feature of this year, and, really, the upcoming
      several years, will be drought and heat wave features deepening.
    • David
      Mike, it s been a long time since we ve seena big storm strike the New England coast. I wonder if we might this year. A cool Pacific and a warm Atlantic
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 28, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike, it's been a long time since we've seena big storm strike the New
        England coast. I wonder if we might this year. A cool Pacific and a
        warm Atlantic would seem to suggest it. Needless to say, I'm glad to
        see your prediction that the Carolinas will be largely spared.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.