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

Does the oil slick change our weather?

Expand Messages
  • Mike
    Anyone who has followed my previous discussions on electrics may recall my discussion on tropical storms in the Atlantic and drought conditions in the CONUS
    Message 1 of 1 , May 27, 2010
      Anyone who has followed my previous discussions on 'electrics' may recall my discussion on tropical storms in the Atlantic and drought conditions in the CONUS and how they were affected by dramatic river changes. For instance, around 1903 the Colorado left its banks and formed a salt sea--the Salton Sea, in California. Hence the water flow into the Gulf of California was altered. I have theorized that this then created lower carbonation in the Gulf of California as well as less fresh water capping there, and this produces different electrical conditions--reduces the chances for tropical storms in the Gulf of California. Then, when thunderstorms form over the CONUS, electron precip is then not going to find electrical couplings over that region, and then those same charges flow/move/organize over the places of least impedences--namely, the Atlantic. A simple analogy is when you plug something into the wall that takes a lot of juice, and then the lights dim.
      It's very clear from looking at the Atlantic and EPAC tropical storm seasons that hurricanes in each location are counter correlated--and the reason, again, I surmise, is electrical.

      The year following the diversion of the Colorado found a doubling of activity in the Atlantic. Likewise, changes to the Rio and Colorado and Mississippi in 1932 (ground broke for Hoover dam) brought 1933, the second most active Atlantic. Then came the boring thru a mountain to bring water from the Colorado to Tuscon, and the drought in the SE lowering Lake Mead in 2004, and after that came the crazy 2005 record Atlantic season.

      I could talk about it in terms of in active rivers, too, individually, but the story is a bit longer, and I hope I got my point across. Electrics is a large scale phenomonon involving very very large static field organizations so it takes a large event to make a difference. I think this oil spill is going to end up qualifying as large.

      I should point out that the last couple of years have had low solar activity in the min and on top of that there was a large dam built in the midst of hurricane country in central western Mexico called El Cajon dam. I am convinced it too has has somewhat of an impact on, again, sedimentation rates, carbonation loads, fresh water capping in the Pacific where it drains. Last year there was severe drought in Texas and Mexico followed by when the rainy season was supposed to be over and the dam flow begins, flooding in Texas and the largest TS in the EPAC in 11 years.

      So what does the oil do? It caps the oceans. It is electrically much more insulating than the salty spray of the oceans. The oil in some form will also be getting into cloud droplets. Pure water is highly insulating and I do believe that the contamination of that water will be more electrically conductive.


      This is what the main stream thinking is. It is in error because even though tropical storms are large and come from places other than the slick covered oceans, the lightning, or electrical displacement currents that control upper level conditions comes from the CONUS and the connective pathway is ... See MoreTHROUGH the slick covered area. It's like creating an open in a wire.



      It's happened before. Last time w/in a year there was Allen.


      Then for the next several years starting 1981 the GOM went really quiet and the EPAC got really active.


      Here is a real time lightning strike indicater for the the CONUS. This is essentially new technology from WU. The idea is in a large scale way the way charges organize up and down in the atmosphere affects in a small scale way how cloud droplets behave--do they add another water molecule and move phase change energies one way, hence become warmer, then expand the air nearby and cause convection or subsistance and drying air? The electrical complexity in the climate change debate is not examined, where CO2 has a direct conductivity meaning in cloud droplets. The whole debate has been over CO2 as a GHG when water in the air is on order of scale 100 times more of a GHG . . . or not. YET CO2 is corralated to all the changes occurring. It all points to wrong mechanism.

      The loop current is fast and warm. For each deg F there is a one percent increase in conductivity for ocean water, and that oil is getting drawn into that warm and therefore conductive loop current as we speak.

      Sun spot activity is coiming back and El Nino models have that dying out to nuetral. It's going to be very interesting watching the weather over the next few months.

      BTW the QBO is still negative, and that is an electrically significant index as well . . .


      The last spill from 79-80, which was similar to this one, was followed by Allen in 1980. THEN the GOM became very quiet and the EPAC became very active. So at first, huge storm (Allen was a cat 5) big storm then quiet for several years. Quiet like that probably means regional drought, too.

      El Nino according to computer models is independantly ending. El Ninos suppress activity, and so it would appear that no El Nino is going to stop a big storm from occurring.

      Sun spots are on the rise, and for similar electrical reasons, the lact of solar flares, spots won't stop a big storm from occurring in the GOM.

      The hidden costs from this accident IMHO are huge.

      I think El Ninos are interesting--and it was full blown in April. That is what we are coming out of. Lots of 1, 2 and 3 Aprils last month. This was before the spill.

      In an El Nino relatively speaking the tropical east pacific becomes the low impedence location on earth. It means that electrical currents and fields in the atmosphere will go there and not elsewhere. The theory then would be that there is less electrical energy to create severe weather and tropical storms while the electrical energy that might form such events goes to the low impedence location. That is why even though April was the warmest month EVER in many catagories around the world, there wasn't a lot of severe weather. Only an electrical model explains many inconsistant atmospheric behaviors like that . . .

      It is in that context that a very electrical event, in a large scale way, has occurred in the GOM.

      Already there re these large scale capacitive couplings from ocean to upper atmosphere--and then how clouds will electro statically move inside these fields is the difference between subsistance, convection, and how clouds are 'sheared' by upper level winds. It isn't the lightning per se that causes a cat 5, it's the clouds around the GOM with 'grease' in them that move differently. Indeed, this is the whole problem with CO2--it's not that it is a green house gas, but that pure water is highly insulative, whereas with CO2 dissolved in the water droplets that form clouds--they become 4-10 times more conductive and proportionately so. Then how these clouds move, when they are 100 times the GHG as CO2, becomes interesting. Do they subsist? Rise and become convective? This is why the danger from CO2 is not 'warming' per se but explosive non linear cloud behaviors, namely, a pre mature super storm. These storms last about 10 years and are followed by thousands of years of cold, dry weather.

      Billions of people would die around the world from starvation and displacement with such a set of storms.

      BTW, the mechanism of the super storms is simply putting ice on the land makes the oceans more saline--and hence more CONDUCTIVE. The oceans then can support, electrically, a more significant storm. The earth's climate equillibrium then moves with the storms to a different setting, which is colder and drier.

      Presently ice is slowly MELTING, which dilutes the oceans and makes them LESS CONDUCTIVE. This provides a negative feedback to the human induced warming, which I have stated, is electrically based, not based on CO2 as a green house gas. This is why the melting, for instance, is occurring in the Arctic and not Antarctica, and WHEN it is occurring--during peak lightning. Likewise, an electrical forcing explains the MSU data--which is skewed to the northern hemisphere . . .

      The whole climate change debate missed the complexity of electrics, even in a modern era where it is part of our lives. It's like that song rocket man by Elton John: "All this science I don't understand, it's just my job 5 days a week." You have electrical media like ClimateAudit.Org -- missing the boat on electrics. Lots of irony there.

      Anyway, the spill points to both the concerns AND potential solutions--to controlling weather and climate for the better of the environment. But the first thing to do is to appreciate the mechanism involved, which is electrical.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.