Global Weirding

Catastrophic Weather & ‘Global Warming’

Here in Georgia the lights went out on September 11th when Hurricane Irma came roaring through. Not only were they back-to-back storms (Harvey, Irma, Jose, Maria, etc.) but also, in those same terrifying weeks, Mexico was hit with three mighty earthquakes. All too predictably, the hurricanes were blamed on global warming. But could they also blame the quakes on warming? They’ve tried.

But I decided to take a look myself. In fact, a similar confluence occurred in 2011 when the Atlantic states experienced almost simultaneously: an earthquake, a hurricane (Irene), and killer tornados in Joplin, Missouri and elsewhere; that year saw 1,000 tornados in the U.S. heartland, killing more than 500 people. It was, besides, the wettest April in the Midwest in 116 years, while Texas had the driest month in a century, and North America saw a record number of snowstorms.

And during the previous gigantic surge (back in ’05), we had hurricane Katrina (New Orleans) late in August, then the eruption of the Llamatepec Volcano in El Salvador in the first week of October, followed (four days later) by Hurricane Stan, which devastated both El Salvador and Guatemala; three days after that, a 5.8 magnitude earthquake hit those same Central American countries. On that very day, October 8, 2005, came the terrible (7.6) earthquake in Kashmir—on the opposite side of the globe.

Coincidence? I think not. But these days, when anything unusual happens in the climate cycle, the boilerplate response is to blame global warming. Blame it for sea levels rising. Blame it for hurricanes. Blame it for earthquakes, wildfires, melting glaciers, coral eating starfish; blame it for killing crops and endangering species. Blame it for mudslides and floods—conveniently forgetting that mudslides, increased runoff, and subsequent flooding are all too often the result of massive logging and clear-cutting. Mt. Kilimanjaro, for that matter, is losing its ice—not because of rising temperatures but due to lack of precipitation caused by deforestation. On autopilot, we blame global warming for drought as well—even though we know the lost forest-canopy was a prime recycler of moisture. And we blame global warming for dengue (and other) fevers—even though we know the loss of forests stirs parasites, viruses, and other pathogens out of their niche and onto new (human) hosts.

And, are you ready for this? Global warming (thanks to the latest “weather anomaly” called Omega Block) also accounts for global cooling! The Block “leading to colder, more brutal winters” (Walsh, Bryan, “Climate Strange,” Time, Dec. 29, 2014, 46). After all, someone needs to explain things like the cold snap in eastern Australia in 2007: they’d not had such low temperatures for more than 100 years; June 24 saw the coldest Brisbane morning on record.

Only a few scientists have stood apart. Hurricanologist William Gray, for one, cast doubt on the factoid that ocean warming is responsible for stronger storms. He attributes them instead to the natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which peaked around 2005 (the time of those particularly destructive hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis).

Roy Spencer is another, citing the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) whose fluctuations can account for most “climate change.” “The scientific community has totally misinterpreted climate sensitivity [to human heat sources]… Satellite evidence suggests otherwise,” as do “small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems.” Alabama’s foremost climatologist, alongside John Christy, Dr. Spencer (author of The Great Global Warming Blunder) thinks that, “your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet skeptic regarding mankind’s influence on climate.”

Such fluctuations, involving the repositioning of currents, might better explain “global weirding,” the term referring to climate turmoil in unexpected places like: tropical storms reaching all the way to Spain and the Canary Islands—and now to Ireland (Hurricane Ophelia); or, southern Brazil’s first-ever hurricane, “Catarina,” (in ’04) thought to be way out of range. Most telling were the comments of Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research: “Global warming may not have triggered Catarina, as ocean temperatures were not unusually high in the area and the air above the ocean was unusually cool” (Pearce, Fred. “Catarina’s Shock Message,” New Scientist, Sept. 24, 2005, 10).

Other studies, like Vecchi and Soden’s (Vecchi, Gabriel A., and Brian J. Sodden. 2007. “Global Warming and the Weakening of the Tropical Circulation.” (Journal of Climate 20: 4316), finding no link between hurricanes and warming, have fallen on deaf ears. The most explosive refutation is Chris Horner’s book, Red Hot Lies, describing the brazen tactics of IPCC to muzzle the truth as told by hurricane experts.

Now Dr. Spencer’s PDO, which occurs regularly every 30+ years, is described as nature’s way of balancing, of moving heat around the earth. There is every reason to expect more heat, moisture, and commotion during the peak of the 33-year cycle (called a “spell” in the Winter Tables of old Egypt—see AR #66 “Sky-Time”). The meteor cycle runs in spells (every 33 years), as do phases of the tides (according to the work of Eduard Bruckner). Viruses mutate every 33 years; even the bull and bear markets of the stock exchange tend to fluctuate according to a 33-year cycle, dividing the twentieth century into “comparable thirds.” Being cyclic, the surge abates, only to roar again at the next peak. None of this indicates a trend of mounting heat.

 

Follow the Money

With all the bucks flowing to the warmists’ coffers, we end up with a spate of instant, ad hoc theories pinning even earthquakes on global warming: Melting glaciers, authorities now declare, change the pressure on tectonic plates, thus does “global warming lead to earthquakes … [when] massive landslides shift pressures on underlying faults” (Joseph, Lawrence, Apocalypse 2012, 81-2).  But we’re still stuck with explaining the simultaneity: Why would hurricane systems get organized at the same time that stock markets, tornadoes, the glaciers and tectonic plates are acting up? Methinks we have yet to ferret out an underlying mechanism—which, as I will suggest anon—may have a lot to do with the rhythms of Earth’s magnetic field.

There is no telling what the manifestations will be in peak years. Quakes? Storms? Flood? Epidemic? Riots? In the same year of the Great San Francisco earthquake and fire (1906), Hong Kong experienced a catastrophic flood that killed 10,000 people. Surge/peak times, as the fascinating field of cycles research reveals, bring not just storms and quakes but tumult in financial markets, crises in human health, radio wave disturbances on Earth, augmented thickness of tree rings, wider dispersion of (disease-bearing) insects, greater amplitude of auroras, and yes, more heat.

The warming, though, is more likely a symptom—not the cause—of that underlying mechanism which triggers events as diverse as drought and flood, tornado and volcano, hurricane and earthquake, and even the ups and downs in human affairs. With a different (wider) agenda than our own tunnel vision, the Russians have been investigating the mutual cause of “seemingly diverse meteorological, seismic, and volcanic phenomena” (Joseph).

So we ask: Are overheated bodies of water ultimately causing hurricanes—or do they result from magnetic turmoil in the earth’s vortex (its force-field)? The accelerated rotary motion of the vortex during peak times translates as accelerated rotary motion of the tempest or tornado.

Another dimension to consider is the actual position of the earth within its vortex (touched on in AR #111 “Is the Planet in Midlife Crisis?”). This discussion relates to so-called “moon recession” (the moon gradually drawing away from Earth). In fact, we suggest that the reverse is true—Earth, as it ages, slips farther away from the moon, slowly falling lower in the vortex. This places it closer to the turbulent walls of the vortex, thus increasing atmospheric friction which is indicated by a rise in something called the Schuman Cavity Resonance, a formula measuring the space between Earth and the Ionosphere (the power station of the vortex). The cavity conducts electromagnetic waves, and in recent years, readings have risen from 8Hz to 12Hz. If nature seems more capricious than ever, perhaps those elevated Hz readings indicate the buffeting/jostling of Earth itself, now in closer proximity to the vortexian walls.

But there is more. It’s back to cycles research and the regular compression (“deformation”) of the magnetosphere, a natural phenomenon, rhythmically flattening and rounding the magnetic lens. When ESA satellites took readings of these changes in shape, they saw “how the magnetosphere is periodically deformed… We expect to see more and stronger storms” (in the rounding, or deformed, phase). French, Japanese, and Israeli scientists are on to these changes in the Ionosphere, particularly as regards the rise in electron flux and streams of ions during earthquakes (see AR #118 “What Makes Our Planet Shake?”).

Yet another point to consider: If warming is really the cause of these storms, please explain the “50 percent increase in the destructive power of cyclones in the past half-century” (noted in a 2005 issue of New Scientist)—while “nuclear winter” (colding) was still the trend? Indeed, twentieth century scientists (during the cold phase of the PDO) were warning us that the next ice age was “overdue.” And in the same issue of New Scientist is brief (very brief) mention that some scientists think: “that climate change would alter heat distribution in the oceans to damp down storms” [e. a.].

In fact, I wonder how warmists will explain away:

  • The 80-million-year trend of dropping temperatures on Planet Earth; that cooling trend in perfect lockstep with the loss of Earth’s axial velocity.
  • The cooling of Antarctica’s desert valleys since the 1980s. Sure, parts of the western peninsula are melting, but parts of the eastern lands are cooling, their ice thickening (see AR #109, “Antarctica Sea Ice Expanding Dramatically”). Ditto Arctic ice (see AR #117, “Crying Wolf and the Polar Bear”).
  • Played-out Mars, a good example of a planet’s systematic approach to extinction by virtue of colding and drying (see AR #71, “Global Cooling”).
  • Florida citrus growers driven south since 1900 due to cooling trends. “Vegetation belts have moved steadily southward” (Imbrie, John. Ice Ages, 178).
  • Cooling temperatures in recent years in the tropical Pacific and in the southern hemisphere (witness, for example, increased snowpack in the Andes). John Christy, Alabama’s chief climatologist, gives the Big Picture: “The average temperature in the U.S. has been slightly higher but… the southern hemisphere has been lower” (Discover, Feb. ’01).
  • The Greenland Ice Sheet is actually getting thicker (see AR #117, “Greenland Melting?”).
  • Cold wave of 2014, when the eastern half of the U.S. was gripped by cold so extreme that most of the Great Lakes was frozen over; temps dipped to -25 degrees F. in places like Caspar, Wyoming, while 3 feet of snow piled up in Michigan’s UP—long before the Winter Solstice.
  • CO2 and methane appear to be the effect, not the cause of warming: in the springtime, the thawing earth releases these gases. Not to worry, nature produces a whole lot more CO2 than humans; besides, CO2 vigorously promotes plant growth, a boon especially in dry regions.

If we’re so worried about our “carbon footprint,” why have “concerned” governments not undertaken massive reforestation projects? And if they’re so sure fossil fuels are the main culprit in alleged warming, why have leaders not enacted tax credits for clean energy, or switched to: 1) non-carbon alternatives and renewable sources of energy, 2) smaller cars, phasing out gas-hog SUVs and monster pickups, and 3) sweeping mass-transit initiatives?

And if they’re so sure sea levels are rising, why have they not systematically fortified coastal cities with seawalls and dikes? Or put a stop to the ruination of mangroves, which buffer coastal areas against tropical storms? And if they’re so sure aerosols have punched a dangerous hole in the ozone, why haven’t these friends of the environment banned them (as they did widely with DDT)?

“Fight climate change”? All the scaremongering, bugbears, and “climate porn” in the world cannot erase our bad choices catching up with us—like building Mexico City on swampland, making quick profits thanks to shabby building codes. If “anthropogenic” (man-caused) had any meaning, we would have long since abandoned “blind rush” diversions: “All of the largest freshwater wetlands in the world are now under threat from diversion projects” which clearly raise local temperatures (Linden, Eugene. The Future in Plain Sight, 108-9).

“Anthropogenic”: What agenda allows us to put “human influence” (greenhouse gases, aerosols, emissions) to the fore and celestial mechanics (and Mother Nature) to the rear? If sincerely wanting to grapple with human impact on climate, our scientists and engineers would be warning us against the risks posed by tampering with nature.

But merrily exploiting the biosphere and ecosystems, destroying habitats, wetlands, and forests, we turn around and blame global warming for environmental changes which have (to be honest) been triggered by laissez-faire environmental policies.

Has the global-warming scapegoat/craze drawn our attention away from things we ought not think about or even know about? “Although the use of weather modification as a weapon was banned by a United Nations Convention… some countries might still be tempted” (Hoffman, Ross. “Controlling Hurricanes,” Scientific American, Dec. 2004, 69–77).

As fanciful as the hurricane started by “the beat of a butterfly’s wings,” global warming, says Dr. Spencer, is a “huge house of cards… the greatest scientific blunder in history… the worst case of mass hysteria the world has ever known.” But why would the establishment spin us so mightily? Cui bono? (Who stands to gain?) Rich nations? Special interests? No time for this now. But one thing’s for sure: It’s the money, honey.

By Susan B. Martinez, Ph.D.