What has been seen worldwide in the last decades is a tremendous increase in severe, damaging and massively abnormal weather. This recent increase in abnormal weather is occurring after environmental research and experimentation has led to the development of the capabilities needed to create severe and abnormal weather. It appears that the current severe weather might be the result of weather assault through means of weather modification being practiced by nations against other nations.What has been seen the last number of years in the United States is an increase in severe weather including drought, floods and hurricanes. Foreign countries have been increasingly involved in the technical research and experimentation that is associated with weather modification in the United States. These same countries have increased their economic investment in, and purchase of land and assets in areas of the United States that have been devastated by drought, floods and hurricanes. This same pattern has been seen in other nations.The hurricane seasons for the last number of years have been particularly devastating for the United States. This follows a period of years in which the number of hurricanes, their severity and their affect on land and people increased starting in 1995.This severity increased after the implementation of two different measures and technological advancements that greatly increased the information about the topography and coastal areas of the United States and greatly increased technological capabilities to gather information, monitor, and remote sensor information about hurricanes.The first measure, which served to provide a great deal of information on U.S. coasts, waterways near coasts, and structures on and near U.S. coasts was a program called SLOSH.The program SLOSH, as described in the book, “Hurricane Watch – Forecasting the Deadliest Storms on Earth” by Dr. Bob Sheets, the former director of the National Hurricane Center and Jack Williams, is a program that calculates how far inland the surge from a particular storm might go and also measures and monitors near coastal bodies of water to monitor the water levels.The book notes that, “In a cooperative effort with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, local and state governments, and other components of the Weather Service, Hurricane Center personnel ran the SLOSH model for the entire US coastline from Texas to Maine. The basic information came from U.S. Geological Survey contour maps. Maps with accurate elevations were essential, but so was information about man-made features such as railroad embankments that raise the tracks a few feet above the ground and gated communities near the shoreline. These residential enclaves are often surrounded by walls; a six-foot brick wall will be an obstacle to an incoming storm surge, and openings within the wall will be outlets for the surge.SLOSH (an acronym for “Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes”), indicated what gated communities, which homes, strip malls, highways, roads, and farms were likely to be underwater, and which potential shelters should be out of the reach of a storm surge. As director of the National Hurricane Center, Neil Franks started using the SLOSH model to determine how the size, strength, direction, and speed of approach of a hurricane affects the impact of the storm surge on a given basin.A series of model runs were made for each basin along the coastline. SLOSH would make a surge forecast for a particular storm path and speed, and then an additional run would put landfall for the same storm a few miles up the coast, and then another variation, then another, then another – hundreds of runs for each basin (in some cases more than 1,000) with each requiring from half a billion to one billion calculations. Then all of these runs were “composited”, and the highest value from any of the runs for every location was plotted on a map, which became the Maximum Envelope of Water (MEOW) for that particular coastline for a specific storm’s strength, size, speed, and direction of motion, pinpointing potentially dangerous areas.”SLOSH, which was done in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, provided a great deal of very detailed information on the coasts of the United States, and the near coastal bodies of water. It also provided a great deal of information about where the impact of a hurricane and storm would be most destructive, including the mapping of manmade structures along the coast.In 1994, improved satellite and sensor technology capabilities were introduced with the newest generation of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES), which had improved capabilities in both satellite and sensor technology. This technology allowed for more frequent and detailed views of the weather.A description of the increased capabilities attendant with GOES, and what was newly enhanced and available for use at that point was described in regard to “Tropical RAMSDIS” (RAMM Advanced Meteorological Demonstration Satellite Demonstration and Interpretation System) Tropical RAMSDIS employs global coverage of the tropics with geostationary automated real-time satellite display images. The high resolution satellite ingest is moved to follow individual hurricanes, typhoons and tropical storms throughout their entire lifetime. With access to five geostationary satellites, it provides excellent coverage of all tropical weather systems around the world.”What occurred after the introduction of Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites, in 1994, was a tremendous increase in the number of hurricanes, their severity, and their damage. There was also a tremendous increase in hurricanes tending to hit land, making landfall numerous times, and often hitting the same region, and sometimes the same place, over and over again both in the same year and subsequent years.With the earlier measuring and mapping of the coast and near coastal bodies of water of the U.S., from Texas to Maine with the SLOSH program, what occurred was a tremendous increase in hurricanes and their severity and frequency after 1994, in the areas that had been mapped, measured and were being sensored with the SLOSH program.Although the reason for the new technology was said to be to give forecasters more information by which to make better forecasts, that has not changed appreciably. However, what has changed since the introduction of this new technology is a large increase in the number of hurricanes, and a large increase in both the severity of hurricanes and their effects on people and land. This is true for both Atlantic Ocean hurricanes and Pacific Ocean typhoons.In looking at records and storm tracks of hurricanes in the past, what was seen before 1995, were hurricanes that often didn’t affect land or people at all. They all originated from Africa and the Atlantic Ocean, and often stayed fully out in the ocean for the duration of the hurricane, not hitting land.All that changed after the introduction of GOES which came into operation in 1995. This is exemplified by the differences between the Atlantic Ocean hurricanes from 1991 to 1994, before the introduction of GOES, and those that have occurred since.
In 1991 there were four hurricanes and four tropical storms, none hit near the same place, or near where they had hit in previous years. In 1992, there were four hurricanes, two tropical storms, and one subtropical storm, none near each other. In 1993, there were four hurricanes and four tropical storms, none in the same place. And in 1994, there were three hurricanes and four tropical storms, none in the same place.In 1995, there was a massive increase in the number of hurricanes, their severity and the similarity of their routes. In 1995, there were 12 hurricanes and 9 tropical storms, a massive jump in number from the years before. Another difference was the route of these hurricanes. Unlike hurricanes in previous years, where a large number formed and dissipated as hurricanes without hitting land; from 1995 on, these hurricanes tended to almost all hit land, and cause damage. In looking at the storm tracks of hurricanes prior to 1995, the hurricane routes tended to meander and drift, often over open ocean, nowhere near land before dissipating. In looking at the storm tracks of hurricanes after 1995, what were seen were often close to straight lines that tended to occur predominantly over land, incurring a great deal of damage.Although it is unusual for a hurricane to naturally make landfall more than once due to the natural dissipation of the hurricane after making landfall, many of these hurricanes, unlike earlier hurricanes, made landfall a number of times, and some of them raked along coastlines, some hundreds of miles inland, as hurricanes on land.What also increased after 1995 in the Atlantic Ocean hurricanes, were hurricanes that affected and were clustered around the United States. With what could be described as very long “tracks”, these hurricanes, that naturally before had formed and dissipated in short periods of time, usually in the Atlantic Ocean, now, in 1995 ran along very straightened and like one another “paths” or ‘tracks”, affecting large areas of coastline in the United States. In 1995, five hurricanes and one tropical storm followed a very similar track, moving up the entire coast of the U.S. Atlantic coast. Three hurricanes and two tropical storms hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. In 1995, eight hurricanes and three tropical storms hit the U.S. and most of them, including in the Gulf of Mexico, moved hundreds and in some cases thousands of miles inland. This is in contrast to earlier hurricane seasons, where in many cases, in numerous years, few hurricanes even caused much impact in the United States at all.In 1996, there were nine hurricanes and four tropical storms. As in 1995, a number hit the United States. Six hurricanes and tropical storms raked along the entire coast of the United States Atlantic Coast. Of these 13 hurricanes and tropical storms, 12 hit land in the U.S., Mexico and the islands in the Caribbean. A number of these storms hit land numerous times, unlike years prior to 1995, when the majority of hurricanes didn’t affect land at all.In 1997, there were three hurricanes, four tropical storms and 1 subtropical storm. Four of these storms also tracked the Atlantic coast of the United States. Five hit the United States and two of the other storms were close to the islands.In 1998, there were ten hurricanes and four tropical storms. The devastating Hurricane Mitch, killed thousands in Honduras. What was also notable this year as well as other years after 1995, were the massively long distances in which these hurricanes and tropical storms held together. Before 1995, most hurricanes were of short distance and duration before they broke up. What has been seen since 1995 are hurricanes organized as hurricanes for massive distances, and long periods of time. For instance in 1997, some of the hurricanes tracked from the African/European coast of the Atlantic Ocean, moved all the way across the Atlantic Ocean as hurricanes, ran along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, and then crossed the Atlantic Ocean all the way back to Europe, staying organized and together as hurricanes longer than any hurricanes ever seen before. A large number of these storms also hit the United States, Mexico and the islands in the Caribbean.In 1999, there were 8 hurricanes and four tropical storms. A number of the hurricanes and storms in 1999 hit Mexico and even Central America, which doesn’t naturally get many hurricanes. In 1998, a number of hurricanes hit the exact same place in North Carolina’s Outer Banks. The worst of these hurricanes was Hurricane Floyd, which followed earlier hurricanes; Dennis, in 1998, and hurricanes the year before that had made landfall at the exact same point on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. This also has been characteristic of the hurricanes and tropical storms since 1995, a number hitting either in the exact same place or close to it, and many following the exact same trajectory or close to it, as well. What is also notable is a “clustering of hurricanes and tropical storms” very close in time in the exact same area, which serves to create a massive amount of damage in one area in a short period of time, both in the same year and in the subsequent, close in time years. In 1999, the storms Lenny and Jose, both followed the exact same track in the islands. Previous to 1995, what was characteristic of the path of hurricanes were that they were random, usually not very damaging, and often completely not affecting land. They were storms that formed and dissipated with no pattern and formed as tropical storms and hurricanes previously, in places and time very distant from one another. What is striking about the hurricanes after 1995, is that they tended to be almost uniformly in very similar paths in both place and time. In the case of Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Dennis was still affecting the northern part of the U.S. while Hurricane Dennis had already made landfall and was following in the same path behind it.In 2000, there were 8 hurricanes, six tropical storms and one subtropical storm. A number of these hurricanes again hitting land, including the United States and a number hitting Mexico, including the Yucatan, as had been the case the year before.In 2001, there were nine hurricanes and six tropical storms. Unlike previous years since 1995, there was only one hurricane along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. That was Tropical Storm Allison, early in the season, from June 5 through 19th. There were a number of storms in Mexico and also two that again hit Central America, Tropical Storm Chantal and Hurricane Iris. Within a few short years, three hurricanes had hit Central America. In fact, in terms of unnaturalness, two storms in 2001 were virtually in the same place at the same time. Hurricane Iris was a hurricane from October 4 through 9th. Tropical Storm Jerry, a tropical storm from October 6 through October 8th, was virtually in the same location, within the same time period as Hurricane Iris. Hurricanes and tropical storms naturally require great distances to form with the requirement of different levels of clouds rotating in the same direction at the same speed, what was seen with Hurricane Iris and Tropical Storm Jerry were two storms that were slightly apart from each other in distance yet formed and held together as a tropical storm and hurricane, when naturally the forces of the one storm, would not have allowed the second storm to form.What has also changed and not something naturally seen before 1995 have been hurricanes that have stayed organized as hurricanes for very large periods of time and eyes that have tended to be very large, like the hurricanes themselves, and well defined. As well, something is occurring since 1995 which are called “eye wall replacements” or “eye wall replacement cycles”. In natural hurricanes, the hurricane may form and unform, but there are not two separate distinct eyewalls, separate from one another. In fact this is what is being seen with many of the hurricanes since 1995, with a new eyewall or center of the hurricane forming in a place separate from where the hurricane has already formed, yet fairly close to it. What appears to be occurring are really multiple hurricanes forming and existing at the same time, in very close proximity to each other, something that doesn’t occur naturally, as the forces that would cause one eyewall and a hurricane to form, would, in close proximity to another, cause it to dissipate, and in fact, the strong forces of the existing hurricane, would not allow another eye and hurricane to form in close proximity, due to it’s strong winds and rotational force.This was seen with satellite photos of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, where over the Gulf of Mexico, what was seen were two eyewalls, at the same time, a fair distance from one another. The second eyewall rotated a distance from the first, and in competition with it, which would naturally result in the breaking up of the hurricane. What this really amounts to are what could be called “double or multiple hurricanes”. This cannot occur naturally, and has not been seen before this time period. It has been seen in numerous hurricanes since 1995, and has resulted in absolutely massive hurricanes, beyond a size ever before seen naturally which affects large areas of land all at once. Just in 2005, this was true of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.With Hurricane Iris and Tropical Storm Jerry in 2001, both unnaturally virtually in the same place at the same time, this resulted in a much larger degree of damage with what could be called “double or even larger hurricanes” with what is notable in some of these hurricanes, the eye dissolving, as a new one is forming further along the route, while the effects of the earlier eye and hurricane still exist, creating what could be called fully unnatural “megahurricanes”.Satellite photos of Hurricane Katrina, in the Gulf of Mexico, showed an eyewall that had formed south of New Orleans, with the hurricane winds whirling around the center. Within the outer bands of this hurricane, it showed another eyewall, further east of New Orleans, south of the coast of Mississippi existing at the same time. This “multiple hurricane mass” affected a massive region in the Gulf of Mexico itself. It then headed north with what could best be termed “multiple hurricanes forming a megahurricane per effect” hitting the Gulf Coast of the United States. This resulted in massive damage along virtually the entire coast of the U.S. Gulf Coast of Mexico from Alabama to the Louisiana border with Texas, moving a very long distance inland as a “megahurricane” as well.With Katrina, although the official track of the hurricane showed Hurricane Katrina and the eyewall, hitting just west of New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi River, the actual effect of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast showed evidence of multiple eyes of multiple hurricanes hitting the Gulf Coast at once. One of the effects of Hurricane Katrina was the eyewall of the hurricane, hitting the mouth of the Mississippi River with massive force, backflowing the Mississippi River into Lake Pontchartrain, which flooded New Orleans. Eyewalls of hurricanes also hit at the mouths of the Pearl River and the Biloxi River hundreds of miles away. The eyewalls of these hurricanes also hit with such force that they backflowed both the Biloxi River for miles and the Pearl River for miles. The Pearl River backflowed into Lake Borgne which massively flooded the region connected all the way to the Mississippi River backflow into Lake Pontchartrain. It created a massive degree of flooding, damage and inundation in an area the size of Great Britain.What is fully unnatural with the hurricanes since 1995 is both the stability of the hurricanes themselves in duration and size, and large, well formed eyewalls as well.In looking at hurricane satellite photos since 1995 what is seen with the tracking of the hurricanes are what appear to be at the same time “dissolving eyewalls and reforming eyewalls further along a “route” or track” where the hurricane moves next. So that the hurricane either doesn’t diminish in strength at all, or diminishes in many cases, over ocean or water then intensifies as it nears land or in some cases, is actually on land. This is fully unnatural. Hurricanes gain their energy from the interaction with the ocean and intensify more naturally in the ocean and not near land, something which has not been seen recently.What has also changed since 1995, is the, in some cases doubling or tripling of the number of hurricanes over average numbers before 1995.There was no reason for the number of hurricanes to massively jump in 1995, and to a number far beyond what had been seen before. This is indicative of larger numbers of formed hurricanes, and in fact, there is hurricane research being done that has been done specifically on tropical storm genesis. There was a research study done in the summer of 2007, done specifically just on tropical storm genesis in or near the Gulf of Mexico. This research was conducted through the CIMSS center at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.What is notable about the hurricanes since 1995 is they appear to be actually a number of hurricanes, forming, then dissipating in what would be more normal hurricane time periods but with another “hurricane forming” nearby, to give the impression of one hurricane, when in actuality, it appears to be several different hurricanes, with as one is dissipating, another one with a completely separate eye and hurricane forming not far from the hurricane that is dissipating.Naturally, hurricanes or tropical storms are found nowhere near each other at the same time. Hurricanes form over oceans because they need the vast space of oceans to organize as hurricanes which requires that three atmospheric layers be moving rotationally together in the exact same direction, at the same speed at the same time. These events naturally occur randomly, they occur naturally only in oceans and they occasionally make landfall naturally. It is extremely rare historically naturally for hurricanes to hit land more than once, as hitting land and the resistance on hitting land in and of itself always naturally breaks up hurricanes.It is often reported in reporting on these hurricanes since 1995 that there is an “eyewall replacement cycle”. The inference is that the eyewall strengthens and weakens within the same spot in the center of the hurricane as that is the center around which the hurricane moves. In looking at satellite photos of these hurricanes and tropical storms since 1995, this is not seen to be the case at all. The what are being called “replacement eyewalls” are forming in a separate area from the preexisting hurricane, yet close to it, yet resulting in the destruction of neither. These “replacement eyewalls and the hurricane winds around them, might be called “new hurricanes”, which is seen outright with Hurricane Iris and Tropical Storm Jerry in 2001 with two hurricanes existing side by side, something that can’t happen naturally.These new “megahurricane events” appear to be what could be called “tracked hurricanes” where instead of one hurricane that has for instance moved from Florida all the way up the Atlantic Coast, what is seen is, as one hurricane and it’s eyewall fades, it is immediately subsumed into and pulled along by a new eyewall and hence a new hurricane, that has formed just north of it, and serves to keep the effects of the storm going and on very specific and what appear to be directed “tracks”. These are not single hurricanes, these are hurricane after hurricane after hurricane along specific “tracks or routes”. As soon as one starts dimunition of effect, it is “picked up” by the start of another hurricane forming with a new eyewall further along the “hurricane track”. This also accounts for the very precise and exact landfalls and paths that have been seen again and again with completely different hurricanes since 1995. These hurricanes give the appearance of being fully directed per movement and force.In 2002, there were four hurricanes and eight tropical storms. What is notable about the storms in this year, is that a number of them didn’t form in the Atlantic, but formed in the islands or quite close to land. Tropical Storm Fay and Tropical Storm Hanna, formed right next to land. In the case of Tropical Storm Arthur and Tropical Storm Bertha, they strengthened into tropical storms on land, not in the ocean at all. This is another massively abnormal phenomenon which has been seen with hurricanes since 1995.An example is Hurricane Wilma in 2005, where upon approaching Florida, instead of diminishing and weakening upon hitting land, which always happens naturally as the hurricanes lose their ocean source of energy and run into resistance on land, which naturally breaks up the hurricanes. In the case of Hurricane Wilma in 2005, it strengthened from a category 2 hurricane over water, to a category 3 hurricane in strength, after hitting land. Hurricane Wilma not only strengthened but widened upon hitting land in Florida. In fact, fully unnaturally, there was no weakening of Hurricane Wilma over land at all in Florida, remaining a category three hurricane per measurements all the way across Florida and on the Atlantic coast.As well, what was notable with Hurricane Wilma was that the winds and effects of Hurricane Wilma were the same on both the Atlantic and the Gulf Coasts, as Hurricane Wilma started moving onto the Gulf side of the state and moving across the state.Hours later, the hurricane and it’s effects ended at the same time in both places, having done as much, if not more damage on the Atlantic Coast, at the exact same time as on the Gulf Coast. It appeared that in fact, these were two different hurricanes both in opposition to each other naturally on both sides of Florida at the same time. Although the ocean is needed as a source of water and the existence of hurricanes themselves, in the case of Wilma, the hurricane strengthened over land. In the cases of Tropical Storms Arthur in Bertha, in 2002 they hadn’t even strengthened into tropical storms in the ocean, but over land.In 2003, there were seven hurricanes and nine tropical storms. What is notable about the hurricane season in 2003, was the large number of storms in the Gulf of Mexico. Six of the storms were in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is not a place that naturally experiences many hurricanes. With hurricanes naturally forming in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean islands form a natural barrier to there being much hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico. What was also seen in this and the subsequent two years, were not only large numbers of hurricanes hitting the Gulf of Mexico itself and the coasts and land on the Gulf of Mexico, but hurricanes forming in the Gulf of Mexico itself, instead of the Atlantic Ocean. This is not something that naturally happens. Hurricanes have always naturally formed in the oceans. In fact, hurricanes do not naturally form nor strengthen, in smaller bodies of water, such as the Gulf of Mexico.Given the smaller body of water in the Gulf of Mexico, the category strength of the hurricane and the winds and waves are naturally less than would be seen in the ocean, due to the smaller size of the body of water. Fully unnaturally, with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, they massively strengthened in the Gulf of Mexico, with tremendous force winds and waves.What occurred with the massively high wind and wave speeds with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, was specifically a tremendous amount of damage to the oil rigs and oil infrastructure sited in the Gulf of Mexico itself. These force winds and waves have never been seen in the Gulf of Mexico before, and they don’t naturally occur there. This damage occurred in the same year that massive destruction was done to a large part of the Gulf Coast as well. And destruction that also served to damage the oil and gas industry and infrastructure, for instance; on land oil and gas facilities and refining and production facilities. And like the other changes in hurricanes seen since 1995, they served to do a tremendous amount of damage.In 2004, there were nine hurricanes, five tropical storms and one subtropical storm. The 2004 hurricane season was massively destructive in both the United States and in the Caribbean. A large number of the hurricanes and storms tracked up the full coast of the United States. A number of these storms moved along the same route, following one another. For example, Tropical Storm Bonnie ran along the Atlantic coast of the United States, with Hurricane Charley following the same track close behind. A number were clustered in the state of Florida and did massive damage. Hurricane Charley hit the center of Florida before moving north, and Hurricane Frances impacted almost the exact same place in Florida. It wreaked enormous destruction on the northwest Gulf of Mexico coast in Florida, before crossing and moving up the Atlantic coast of the United States. Hurricane Ivan hit an enormous number of areas. In the U.S., it hit the Gulf of Mexico coast, moved halfway up the interior of the United States, moved to the Atlantic Coast, and instead of moving north, headed straight south along the Atlantic Coast, slicing through the state of Florida, before exiting on the Gulf coast of Florida, and then heading back up to make another landfall on the Gulf of Mexico coast.. Hurricane Ivan, and it’s route is one of the most representative storms seen since 1995, where it almost appears as if these are a number of separate hurricanes “stitched together” and called a single hurricane” with the hurricane track making inexplicable stops and turns in direction, the result of which serves to do a massive amount of damage to a large number of places. With these hurricanes, what has been seen is no dimunition with landfall, even with these storms hitting land over and over, and in a number of cases, moving along inland as tropical storms and hurricanes with no weakening of effect. Hurricane Jeanne in Florida followed the exact same track in Florida as Hurricane Frances had just before it, hitting the exact same area over again, creating much more damage than occurred with one and allowing no chance for recovery from Hurricane Frances.In 2005, there were 14 hurricanes, 12 tropical storms and one subtropical storm. There have never been so many tropical storms and hurricanes in one year and for the first time, the named storms moved into the Greek alphabet. In 2005, the hurricane season, which normally diminishes after October, continued all the way into 2006 with Tropical Storm Zeta.As well as hurricanes moving along what appear to be directed tracks since 1995, what is occurring are hurricanes remaining stationary for unnaturally long periods of time. In the late 1980’s, Hurricane Hugo set a record for the length of time that a hurricane had affected one area, with a large increase over the previous record, remaining stationary for 12 straight hours.Hurricanes, with their high wind speeds, are naturally fast moving. They have been described as “blowing through”. In fact, what has been seen since 1995 is a massive unnaturalness in this as well. With hurricanes or severe storms, the wind itself, due to the velocity and speed of the wind, blows the storm or hurricane and the effects of the hurricane and storm, through very quickly.Although naturally, non storm related weather which does not include high winds, can rain for some days on end, with storms and hurricanes, the characteristic high winds associated with storms, tropical storms and hurricanes, in and of themselves, mean that these storms are of short duration.What has been seen since 1995, are hurricanes, tropical storms and storms that have high winds that would naturally blow through very quickly acting at the same time, like what can only be called “stationary fronts”, which in and of themselves per action, are the exact opposite of hurricanes and tropical or other storms.In 2005, Hurricane Wilma and it’s actions over the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, was not at all characteristic of a natural hurricane. It was characteristic of a stationary front. Hurricane Wilma formed in the Caribbean. It formed very quickly with the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded, the lower the barometric pressure serving to intensify the storm. It moved very quickly directly to the Yucatan Peninsula. Hurricane Wilma sat stationary off the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico for two and one half days, or 60 hours, not moving, breaking the previous record of 12 hours with Hurricane Hugo. During that period of time, it dumped massive amounts of rain over the Yucatan Peninsula, wreaking a great amount of damage, including in Cancun and Cozumel at the same time. It then, with nothing to account for the increase in speed, picked up speed, sped west into the Gulf of Mexico, did a complete opposite turn to the east toward Florida, with no dimunition in speed, and sped to the Gulf Coast of Florida, where it intensified after making landfall. Naturally, hurricanes are fast moving, the wind speeds characteristic of hurricanes, moving the storms along and historically, naturally there is little flooding connected with hurricanes, as they move too fast for much rain to fall.What has been seen in hurricane seasons since 1995 has been clustering of damage and hurricanes in the same region or place in the same year and in the few years before and after, serving to massively damage whole regions in a short period of time. This is fully unlike what has been seen historically with hurricanes, with very few doing much damage, many not affecting land and no pattern at all historically with hurricanes of their hitting areas even close to each other in the same year or in successive years.. What has been seen since 1995, both with storms generally and hurricanes as well, are storms that hit the same areas and regions, over and over again, either right after each other or close in time or in the next couple of years, so that these regions are constantly what could be considered “under assault” and are not able to recover. This too is fully unnatural. Although there are some areas in which hurricanes occur naturally, no places have been subject to massive damage from hurricanes in a short period of time. It has been rare for even those areas that experience the most effects from hurricanes, the islands in the Atlantic and Pacific to experience severe hurricanes. In places like the Gulf of Mexico, and the land surrounding it and the Atlantic coast of the United States, the occurrence is rarer still. Before 1995, it had been decades since a hurricane had done any substantial damage at all in the Gulf of Mexico.These clustered and “same track” hurricanes and storms hitting the same area, serve to destroy and duress whole regions in very short periods of time. This was true of North Carolina in the later 1990’s, this was true of Florida in 2004 and 2005 and this was true of the entire Gulf of Mexico region in 2005. In the hurricane season of 2005, 14 tropical hurricanes and tropical storms hit the Gulf of Mexico and the surrounding coasts and land masses.Since 2003 what appears to be occurring is specifically and appears per effect and timing, planned, destruction of the coasts, cities and communities all along the Gulf of Mexico and the waterways leading into the Gulf of Mexico.In 2004, Hurricanes Jeanne and Frances, occurring one right after the other, followed the same route on the Northwest Gulf Coast of Florida, decimating the region.In 2005, both Florida generally, as well as the Gulf Coast of Florida, again experienced devastating hurricanes. The Northwest Gulf Coast of Florida was again hit as well. Hurricane Katrina decimated hundreds of miles along the Gulf Coast of the United States from Alabama to Louisiana and hundreds of miles inland. The destruction on the coast and inland from Hurricane Rita, which occurred a month later, “dovetailed” with the destruction on the coast from Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Rita’s path hit exactly where Hurricane Katrina had ended, decimating the Louisiana coast which had not been decimated in Hurricane Katrina and continuing further west into Texas, as well as hundreds of miles inland as well.Thus, these hurricanes, occurring in quick succession in 2004 and 2005, and with destruction beyond anything ever seen before in scope and damage, served to decimate Florida and the U.S. Gulf Coast of Mexico, from North Florida to Texas.In 2005, and the few years preceding it, there has also been massive amounts of destruction due to hurricanes in other areas in the Gulf of Mexico and the areas which adjoin the Gulf of Mexico.This has included not only increases in the destruction caused by hurricanes in the islands in or near the Gulf of Mexico, but in the country of Mexico itself. Mexico has seen a tremendous increase in hurricanes the last number of years. With just Hurricane Wilma in 2005, it served to destroy large areas of coast on the Yucatan Peninsula and created a great deal of destruction in Cozumel and Cancun. What is also notable about the region in the Gulf of Mexico and the areas adjoining it, is that in these recent years, there have been a number of hurricanes which affected the countries of Central America as well. The entire region surrounding the Gulf of Mexico, has been hit again and again in the last few years by hurricanes. Cuba as well, has been affected by repeat hurricanes.These regions too, abut the Gulf of Mexico and the waterways moving into the Gulf of Mexico. And these coasts as well are being massively affected.Hurricane Wilma in 2005, also hit the island of Cuba. It created a great deal of destruction in the city of Havana. Just as there was a breach in the protective retaining levees in New Orleans, causing massive damage to the city of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; in Cuba, during Hurricane Wilma, there was a breach in a protective barrier that had had no problems for a century, serving to create a condition for massive inundation of the city of Havana itself. Thus, after the end of the hurricane season of 2005, there was massive destruction in the Gulf of Mexico cities of New Orleans, Cancun, Cozumel and Havana. As well, what was seen in large areas of the Gulf Coasts of these countries, was massive destruction along the coasts, for hundreds and hundreds of miles, serving to in effect, destroy and clear the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico in the United States in the north, in Mexico, in Central America, in Cuba and in neighboring islands.
What occurred after the mapping and measuring of the coasts with SLOSH and the implementation of the upgraded technology of GOES in 1994, was an increase in the number, severity and damage connected specifically with those things for which information was being gathered, and monitored, such as hurricanes.For example, after the mapping and measuring of the coastline, and modeling done to ascertain where the more likely areas for flooding and destruction were, subsequent hurricanes made exact hurricane landfall specifically at points in areas which did serve to create a great deal of damage. North Carolina’s Outer Banks, suffered a tremendous amount of destruction, when hurricane after hurricane made landfall in the exact same spot culminating in Hurricane Floyd which made landfall at the exact spot Hurricane Dennis had while Hurricane Dennis was still moving north on the Atlantic Coast when Hurricane Floyd made landfall.The mapping, measuring and remote sensoring done for the SLOSH program required a great deal of work on the part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other national and local governmental bodies, and a great deal of expense.The reason given for SLOSH, was to map the regions on the coast that were specifically subject to hurricanes, from Texas to Maine. What happened was an increase in severe hurricanes after SLOSH had been run, including hurricanes like Hurricane Andrew. Hurricane Andrew, although not a hurricane that created a great deal of flooding, was another very large hurricane event, with very high winds that did a tremendous amount of damage to existing buildings.Just as was the case with storm surge and flooding and an increase in hurricanes and destruction that occurred after SLOSH had been run and GOES instituted, there had been earlier significant upgrades in technology and monitoring capabilities related to other weather phenomenon that had also seen increases in incidence and severity after the research and upgrades in technological measuring, modeling and monitoring. These included wind speeds with storms. These wind speeds have more than doubled from what occurred naturally before the research and advances in technological and monitoring upgrades, with wind speeds now seen with tornadoes and other storms having doubled over what was measured with wind speeds before then. This followed a great deal of research, modeling, information gathering, and monitoring of wind speeds and cyclonic activities, at, for example, the National Severe Storms Laboratory, which researched tornadoes, and their genesis and intensification. There were numerous research projects, including an atmospheric wave generation research project with the National Severe Storms Laboratory and connected research into cyclones at several universities, such as the University of Chicago, from the 1960’s on. Many of these research projects and experimental laboratories, for example the National Severe Storms Laboratory and the National Hurricane Research Laboratory had a great deal of input from other countries, both in setting up the programs, and the areas of study that would be researched.
Recently, in 2005, there has been, a number of significant enhancements of capabilities to gather information, model information, remote-sensor and monitor atmospheric and ground level conditions that has also coincided with a massive increase in the severe weather phenomenon that is being measured and monitored. In recent years, the entire continental United States, the coast of the United States and coastal regions, and it’s inland bodies of water, such as rivers and lakes, have been mapped and measured, and remote – sensoring capabilities installed.Not only have the coasts, the land masses and the inland bodies of water, including rivers and lakes, been minutely mapped, studied and researched for inundation capabilities, this has also been done for many of the cities of the United States, including very detailed mapping, measuring and remote sensoring monitoring of the bodies of water and coasts near cities, nearby rivers and lakes adjacent to cities, and a massive degree of measuring, mapping, photographing and remote sensoring for inundation capabilities in cities themselves. This has included a tremendous amount of research of U.S. city sewer systems, drinking water systems, retention water facilities, drainage systems, water runoff systems, levees, dams, canals and bridge and port structures, and the cities modeled in three dimensional form, including existing buildings, and structures, including subterranean ones, such as sewer and subway systems and pumping systems.What happened with Hurricane Katrina, was a massive inundation event that was caused by three eyewalls hitting three different mouths of rivers and backflowing and inundating and overflowing the rivers, lakes and canals as well. What also occurred was water that didn’t drain from the city of New Orleans, the failure of a number of pumps and pumping stations, and the inexplicable destruction of canals that served to hold water from getting into the city of New Orleans, such as the 17th Street Canal adjoining Lake Pontchartrain, quite far inland, while canals and levees that served to retain water in the city, that were much closer to the coast, weren’t damaged at all. What also failed was the New Orleans sewer system, which failed to drain water out of the city. None of these systems had ever failed before in the history in New Orleans for centuries before.Before Hurricane Katrina struck, the coasts, rivers, lakes, canals, levees and Mississippi River diversions had been studied extensively, and mapped, measured and were being monitored with remote sensors.The city of New Orleans; it’s structures, the canals, levees, bridges, pumping systems, sewer systems and it’s inundation capabilities, was also massively and extensively studied, researched and mapped, and remote sensors installed in the few years before Hurricane Katrina struck.
The reason given for the SLOSH program and the mapping, measuring, modeling and remote sensoring was to be able to more accurately monitor hurricanes along the coast.Instead what occurred was an increase in intensity and severity of these hurricanes along the coast of the United States.There has been no reason given for the massive amount of research, information gathering, mapping, measuring, modeling, and remote sensoring installation and monitoring of the entire United States and offshore coastal regions that has occurred in the last number of years. These areas are not subject to hurricanes, nor is there generally any history of massively abnormal weather occurring in the continental United States, with any frequency, to make this massive expenditure in time, tax dollars and effort worthwhile.What was measured and mapped with SLOSH, was not only geologic and natural features, but also all existing manmade structures. Walls, buildings, and other man made structures. The measurements and mapping that was being done with SLOSH, included all manmade structures existing at that time for a determination of, for instance, where storm surge from the ocean would go. Naturally, historically, storm surge damage from hurricanes overall has occurred rarely.As well, given that historically these events that have done any significant damage are so rare, decades and even centuries apart and in different parts of the coastline, it would be likely that a great deal would have changed along the coastline, particularly with manmade structures, before a storm surge or other severe weather effect occurred, thus making the measuring, mapping and sensoring based on what existed at any point in time, likely to soon be invalid and erroneous. This is certainly true for all the coasts that have been measured this way, and certainly the cities as well that have been recently measured and mapped including their buildings, walls, streets, diversions and other factors that can change in cities very rapidlyAs well, historically, there is no history of massive weather related catastrophes affecting cities at all before this increase in technological capabilities. Cities by virtue of their density, are naturally destructive of the cyclonic features of both tornadoes and hurricanes, both tending to break apart with resistance, and hurricanes dissipating over land. Historically, neither hurricanes nor tornadoes have done much damage at all to U.S. cities.
Once the measurement, mapping, information gathering, modeling and remote sensoring had being done for the whole continental United States, including coasts, offshore coasts, land, inland bodies of water, and cities; two programs that served to pull together all the new and existing technologies in order to cover the entire United States and offshore areas with advanced radar, satellite, remote sensoring and other advanced technological capabilities, wer implemented.One of these new enhanced technologies was an enhanced utilization of the Geostationary Environmental Satellite (GOES I/M)Some of the new technology and use of the new technology is outlined in the GOES I/M Product Assurance Plan (GIMPAP) for fiscal year 2005 on the “Enhanced Utilization of GOES I/M” Progress Report: October-December-2004 from the NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) from Robert M. Rabin issued January 2005.This enhanced utilization was being used with Doppler radar and other data sources, and focused on a number of areas including enhanced storm tracker capabilities, which includes greater resolution capabilities for examination of clouds and cloud layers.One of the primary utilizations of the enhanced GOES I/M was to record, track and analyze those things connected to heat, precipitation and moisture, both with clouds, and with ground based measuring of the continental United States..There is also in this new more comprehensive use of both preexisting and new capabilities, an increased, and in conjunction, monitoring of ground level heat, moisture and water levels. This includes, as noted in the document, “collaboration with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) on the use of skin temperature to detect surface wetness.” In the document it notes, “Comparisons of GOES-based heating rates have been correlated with modeled soil moisture from the NOAA Climate Prediction and with a vegetation health index for several monthly periods. Correlations are relatively high for the central and eastern U.S. and suggest the usefulness of the technique to monitor surface wetness in clear conditions.” Also for future research in analysis capabilities it included, “Discussed strategies for collaboration with NESDIS/RAMM on future research including surface air temperature.”A number of the new capabilities being discussed in this document are related specifically to precipitation and monitoring of precipitation rates. Some of these included: “Incorporation of satellite rainfall (Hydroestimator and GMSRA) into National grid to be produced at NSSL; precipitation evaluation, particularly in regions of limited radar coverage in the western U.S.; Enhanced use of satellite data in National Mosaic QPE (NMQ). Includes testing of Hydroestimator and GMSRA in complex terrain of the western U.S. (orographic conditions). – Processing has continued to input the Hydroestimator and Multi-Spectral GOES Rainfall Algorithm (GMSRA) into a national scale precipitation evaluation system at the NSSL. Implementation of the evaluation system is expected in the second quarter. In addition, composite images covering the continental United States and surrounding waters continued to be produced in real-time from GOES-12 and GOES-10 data for use in the Multi-sensor rainfall algorithm (and future comparison with the Hydro-estimator) on the new national grid. This imagery is converted to NetCDF format and archived for viewing in WDSS-II for a broad range of applications.”This newly enhanced utilization of GOES includes analysis of moisture in the air, noting in the document what the new capabilities would be used for; “Continued research on use of mesoscale wind analyzes from GOES water-vapor winds. Maintain real-time and archive data (web based)”. This capability would supply continual both real time and checking per the past, analysis of convective clouds for heat and water vapor winds for the analysis of these patterns over time and access by web for remote monitoring.In terms of these capabilities what is seen is vastly increased capabilities and coordination of sensoring and information gathering related to a number of weather phenomenon, and as well a great deal specifically related to precipitation and rainfall both in the United States and in the surrounding waters. What is notable about this as well, is the time when this was scheduled for implementation for use – the second quarter of 2005.The enhanced utilization of GOES was implemented in the second quarter of 2005. This enhanced utilization of GOES I/M was also part of an upgrading of a larger utilization of both pre-existing and new technological capabilities in what is called “Next Generation Quantitative Precipitation Estimate (QPE – 2), or (Q2).A description of the increased capabilities of Q2 is “the scientific and community wide convergence towards high resolution, accurate quantitative precipitation estimate (QPE) and very short term quantitative precipitation forecast (VSTQPF). Q2 continues the National Severe Storms Laboratory’s departure from radar-centric precipitation estimation and moves towards a multi-sensor approach focused on high resolution integration of radar, satellite, model and surface observations to produce very high resolution precipitation estimates.The purpose of the enhanced capabilities of the Q2 project, a joint initiative between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, the NOAA/National Weather Service, the NOAA/Office of Hydrological Development (OHD), the NOAA Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services (OCWSS) and the university research community, is noted as being to: “improve river forecasts, flood and flash flood watches and warnings as well as to enhance hydrologic and hydrometeorological services for numerous users and customers.”The initial version running date for the implementation of Q2 in the continental United States was January of 2005. The phase out of the older system was in December of 2006 and the implementation of both Q2 and short term QPF for the continental United States was implemented in February, 2007.On June 28 and 29 of 2005, a workshop: “Q2 – “next generation QPE”, was held in Norman, Oklahoma. The workshop sponsored by the NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) and the NOAA/NWS and the NOAA/Hydrologic Development (OHD) noted that they had been collaborating towards improving QPE in the National Weather Service operations. It stated, “the collaboration is using the National Mosaic and Multisensor QPE (NMQ) and other projects to support research and science-to-operations of hydrometeorological applications for monitoring and prediction of water-related hazards and freshwater resources in the U.S.”The expected outcomes given for the workshop were “Generation of the science and science-to-operations plan for NMQ as the community platform for QPE and very short-range QPF, and development of collaborative QPE and very short-range QPF research and development, and research-to-operations partnerships across NOAA and with external partners.”A number of the external partners listed as both those sponsoring the workshop and those who would be attending included university connected researchers, private companies, and all of those who might be interested in Q2 research. What is also notable was the reason for the new upgrades. The purpose and focus was not on forecasting. It was instead, as noted in regard to this collaboration and these upgrades were, “for the use of QPE (NMQ) and other projects to support research and science to operations of hydrometeorological applications for monitoring and prediction of water related hazards and freshwater resources in the U.S.” The primary purpose and focus of these upgraded enhancements is for research with the rationale given that this might be applied operationally in the future for forecasting. What has been seen with these enhancements are these upgraded capabilities not being done for use by the U.S. government and forecasting as a primary purpose and the only legitimate one, but primarily and in many cases, the research being done and the information and sensoring being used solely for research purposes.
As well, a great deal of this research and the monitoring and continuing remote-sensoring of U.S. coasts, inland bodies of water and cities is not being done by the U.S. government for the U.S. government and the people of the United States.Although a great deal of this research has been funded by the U.S. government, and U.S. governmental atmospheric, oceanic and geographic agencies, such as the NOAA, the National Hurricane Center, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey, and nationally and state funded U.S. universities; the information being mapped, measured, researched and monitored, is not going to the U.S. government and for forecasting purposes primarily, but for research purposes, by U.S. and internationally connected universities and research projects, and in some cases, by private companies, a number of them foreign private companies.A large number of the ressearchers working both in US governmental and U.S. government funded and connected atmospheric agencies and in U.S. universities to which a large degree of this research has been outsourced are foreigners as well, though much of the funding is still U.S. governmental. For example, in the above document, collaboration with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) was noted. This institute is located at Colorado State University. Although part of Colorado State University and funded by the university, the national government, atmospheric related agencies of the U.S. government and the state government of Colorado as well, this research institute is staffed with researchers who do no teaching and do not call themselves faculty but staff members. A large percentage of them are non-Americans, including through it’s formation and years following, a number of researchers and administrators. As well, the current head of CIRA, Thomas Vonder Haar, notes in terms of those applying to work on the staff at CIRA, “Senior scientists and qualified scientists from foreign countries are encouraged to apply.”One of the recent projects that CIRA is involved with is CloudSat, a NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder Mission that was launched in April, 2006. This project is the world’s most sensitive radar system, designed to measure the property of clouds. The $217 million CloudSat satellite project is predominantly funded by NASA.Although a NASA project, using NASA spacecraft, one of the mission designs was that the CloudSat spacecraft flies in orbital formation as part of a constellation of satellites, including NASA’s Aqua and Aura satellites, the French Space Agency (CNES) Parasol satellite and the NASA-CNES CALIPSO satellite. This is the first time that five research satellites have flown together in formation.Although a NASA mission and co-done with a U.S. university, it is noted by CIRA about CloudSat that “the collaborative mission draws on the expertise of industries, universities and laboratories in the United States, Canada, Japan and Europe. The CloudSat satellite will use the first-ever space-borne millimeter wavelength cloud profiling radar, developed for NASA by JPL in partnership with the Canadian Space Agency. This highly advanced radar has the ability to measure both the altitude and the physical properties of clouds. Existing space-based systems can observe only the uppermost layer of clouds and cannot reliably detect the presence of multiple cloud layers or determine the cloud water and ice content.”As well it is noted that, “The U.S. Air Force will operate the CloudSat spacecraft in orbit and will deliver the raw data to the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, or CIRA, located at Colorado State. CIRA will process all CloudSat data and deliver data products to the scientific community.” There is no reason given as to why the CloudSat data should be analyzed at CIRA and dispersed by CIRA and not by the U.S. government.It is also noted that with CloudSat “the U.S. Department of Energy will provide independent verification of the radar performance through its Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program. Scientists from the United States, Germany, France, Canada and Japan are contributing their facilities and expertise to develop science data products, analyze data and complement the DOE on-orbit verification efforts.” There isn’t any reason given as to why the scientists from these foreign countries would need to develop science data products, analyze data and complement the DOE on-orbit verification efforts.Some of the things being done with CloudSat as noted by CIRA are, “investigating how clouds determine the earth’s energy balance; measuring cloud properties from the top of the atmosphere to the surface of the earth, filling a gap in existing and planned space observation systems; penetrating into and through thick cloud systems; and linking climate conditions to hydrological processes that affect occurrences of drought, incidences of severe weather and availability of water.”NASA is involved in another recently initiated research project that also involves the measurement of precipitation rates. This is the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) which measures precipitation rates in the Americas. This research project, though being done by NASA, is being co-researched and utilized by the United States and Japan.The governments of Britain and Japan and their nationally connected atmospheric research programs are currently jointly working on a research project researching hurricanes, floods and drought in the Americas. This research project is not being done with any of the countries of the Americas, including the United States. Nor is the research and the information gathered, being shared with the countries of the Americas, including the United States.There has been a tremendous increase in the increase, severity and destruction caused by hurricanes, floods and drought in both the United States and the rest of the Americas, which matches in time both the increase in enhanced utilization and capabilities of a number of technological upgrades. This also matches the involvement in time of these countries specifically in doing research in these specific outcomes that have increased since these newly enhanced capabilities.
The mapping, measuring, modeling and remote sensoring of the United States, it’s coasts, and manmade structures on the coast, the offshore areas, land and inland bodies of water, including rivers and lakes, had all been completed by 2005.The mapping, measuring modeling and remote sensoring of a number of U.S. cities, and their manmade structures, as well as nearby coasts, lakes and rivers, had been completed by 2005, including New Orleans. A number of others have been completed since.The upgrades with enhanced Geostationary Earth Satellites that served to monitor and in much more detail, the entire U.S., coastal and offshore regions, and the enhanced Q2 capabilities were both implemented by mid 2005.Since these enhancements and their integration of radar, satellite, modeling, remote sensoring, surface observations and analysis were implemented, what has occurred after their implementation is a massive increase in the incidence of severe weather across the United States, which had been earlier mapped, measured, modeled and is being remote sensored. This has included severe weather generally and as well, specifically in terms of severe weather related to precipitation patterns across the U.S.
What occurred soon after this implementation in 2005, was Hurricane Katrina, a storm absolutely massive in scope and destruction beyond anything ever seen before. Hurricane Katrina served to flood and inundate a region from Alabama to Texas, and the damage was to a land mass as large as Great Britain. Hurricane Rita, a month later, was just as large and also inundated and flooded a massive region. What happened with Hurricane Katrina was a massive inundation of the whole region. This was after a number of earlier hurricanes in 2005; Arlene, Cindy and Dennis had already passed through the region, serving to saturate the whole area. When Hurricane Katrina hit, with one of the eyewalls hitting at the mouth of the Mississippi River, the Mississippi River was 11 feet above normal.What has occurred since the implementation of these enhanced capabilities in 2005, has been a tremendous increase in the flooding of massive regions of the United States. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, served to massively inundate a vast region along the coast and hundreds of miles inland along the Gulf Coast of the United States. At them same time and in November of 2005, in the Northeast United States, heavy storms and record rainfall resulted in flooding and inundation in a large area of the Northeast United States. In the winter of 2005 to 2006, heavy rainfall caused a tremendous degree of flooding in the Southwest Coastal region of the United States, in California. During this same period, what also occurred was record rainfall for consecutive days with rain for the Northwest coastal region of the United States and subsequent flooding.In the spring and summer of 2006, in the northeast United States and in the central Atlantic coastal regions of the United States there were record amounts of rainfall. Records were set in many areas in both the amounts of rain that fell in a one day period, and for the number of days rain fell in a row.This resulted, in the spring and summer of 2006, in the Northeast and Central eastern coastal and inland areas of the United States, was a vast inundated megaflood from Massachusetts all the way down to the Carolinas and for hundreds of miles inland.In the fall of 2006, with record short term rainfall records and record amounts of rainfall over time in the Northwest Coastal region of the U.S. what resulted was massive flooding throughout the region.Since 2005, and the implementation of the enhanced technologies and capabilities with enhanced GOES and Q2, what has occurred with the routes of storms in the continental United States has been a change to very highly organized and unnatural change in the weather patterns and routes in the United States to what appear to be “tracks or routes” with many staying unnaturally stationary for very long periods of time. A number of these enhanced capabilities implemented in 2005, are centered on precipitation specifically. What has been seen along with this very highly tracked pattern of storms across the United States since 2005, are massively abnormal precipitation patterns. In looking at satellite photos of normal weather patterns of decades ago, what was seen was variable weather, with variable precipitation patterns. This weather constantly shifted and varied from day to day. In looking at the weather patterns over time, conditions changed over the country from day to day and were always variable to one another. What has been seen since 2005 in the continental United States is very little variability in the precipitation patterns in the United States. Instead the weather patterns in the continental United States, have appeared to be very abnormal and the movement of weather and storms across the United States have shifted to what appear to be highly methodical and patterned paths, with some very fixed, long term stationary fronts. This has resulted in very high precipitation rates in some areas for months at a time, with no or little precipitation at all in nearby regions, again for months at a time. This has served to create massive destruction in many areas of the U.S., with either flooding or drought conditions existing in large areas of the country since 2005.What is notable about some of the enhanced utilization capabilities are what they measure. What has been seen since 2005, are increased capabilities for measuring and monitoring those specific factors that are related to precipitation, and movement of air masses connected to precipitation. For instance, one of the enhanced capabilities implemented in 2005, is the monitoring and information gathering of orographic forced processes, which is the process of precipitation being caused by the updraft of precipitation potential clouds moving up quickly from warmer temperatures closer to the ground, to cooler temperatures up in the atmosphere leading to rainfall.Also in the document in January 2005, on the “Enhanced Utilization of GOES I/M”, it noted, “Progress was made in developing a convective overshoot product. Images are produced which show the difference between cloud top temperature and parcel equilibrium temperature as estimated from the SPC objective analysis. The idea is to infer the amount of overshoot of the updraft (and perhaps storm intensity) from the temperature difference rather than from absolute cloud top temperatures (which vary with the time of year and location). The product was tested on a few cool season convective events. It was determined that non-convective clouds should be masked from the images to prevent false indications of overshoot. Radar and lightning data will be used for this purpose. Real-time and archived products are available.”What is notable about this “convective overshoot product”, is that it had only been tested on a few cool season convective events, as an experiment, yet based on that, it was going to be implemented to be used as a means of detecting and analyzing weather data, with no information given as to how this product was developed or why there would be an assumption that this differential would be useful in detecting storms, and forecasting precipitation. This product, which is being developed as part of the enhanced utilization of GOES for estimation of precipitation, calls for a masking of non convective clouds from the images with radar, and lightning data being used to determine which are convective clouds. In terms of forecasting, which is the only valid purpose of this enhancement, it would be important to have information on all the clouds. Specific clouds may have the potential to cause rain and storms, but this also occurs in relation to a number of other factors, including other clouds.Since the 1940’s there has been the technology and ability to seed clouds to cause precipitation. Since then, there have been thousands of research studies, modeling and simulation experiments and physical experimentation and engineering projects, connected to weather modification. There has also been research and information gathering, technological updates, remote-sensoring, modeling, simulation, experiments and engineering that is applicable to weather modification, being conducted in governments, universities and organizations around the world, in which the knowledge and capabilities have far exceeded what was known and able to be done with just cloud seeding in the 1940’s. It is significant that these changed technological advances and capabilities have not improved the forecasts appreciably, but that the weather that is able to be specifically monitored, analyzed, measured and analyzed, has changed after these particular enhanced capabilities have been implemented.
In observing the movement of fronts including storm fronts across the United States in the last few years, what is notable is the abnormality of the movement. One of the prevailing normal weather patterns over the continental United States is a pattern of weather moving from the southwest to the northeast. This has rarely been seen since 2005.In precipitation patterns in the continental United States since 2005, there has been a predominant pattern of storm fronts and precipitation remaining stationary at and near U.S. coasts, expelling large amounts of rain, while the interior of the country has received much lower amounts of precipitation and rainfall than normal. This has resulted in severe massive floods along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, the Pacific Coast of the United States and the Gulf Coast of the United States since 2005, with record high temperatures, lack of precipitation and severe drought in much of the interior United States.The predominant weather pattern seen since 2005, is precipitation being picked up from the oceans and gulf, moving inland along and near the coasts, and not moving further inland. In satellite and weather patterns, what is seen are lateral either stationary or laterally moving fronts predominantly just along the coasts, with these fronts usually not moving into the interior of the country.
What has also occurred in very large regions, and for very abnormally long duration, is a lack of precipitation, with abnormally low levels of precipitation being seen in much of the country. Due to the duration of this lack of precipitation, which is in some regions, constant and of a number of years duration, this continuous lack of precipitation has accentuated the destruction far beyond what ordinarily would exist with normal drought. With years with no or little rain, these areas have suffered conditions of drought never seen before. There have been, in the history of this country, conditions of drought that have lasted for a year of variable, but generally abnormally dry weather. The conditions are often called drought when the lack of rainfall presents itself during periods of time when crops are being planted, grown or reaped, in terms of effect. What has occurred in recent years is something far different, drought of massive proportion in terms of overall absolute lack of precipitation and for very, very long periods of time.The capabilities that have been enhanced since 2005, with increased satellite, radar and remote-sensoring capabilities are not only useful for sensoring and monitoring those conditions that are related to high levels of precipitation, but also those conditions that are related to low levels of precipitation; such as higher temperatures, drought and fires.These increased data gathering capabilities, monitoring and analysis that have been enhanced for utilization include the analysis of vegetation health, ground moisture content, the moisture content of air vapors and the lightning strikes in convective clouds. These are all monitored for the likelihood of fire conditions in governmental offices and U.S. university research facilities that research and monitor for fire. The dryness of the vegetation is monitored and rated as a fuels source to measure the burning potential given the dryness of the vegetation after months of drought, all of which is being monitored.In fact, the fires in the west in the winter of 2006, started all at once, in various locations in western states, and the causative factor as reported, was dry lightning, with it being reported that the fires started with 2,000 dry lightning strikes in Utah and neighboring states. Lightning potential of clouds is been monitored with the enhanced GOES capabilities. There have been large numbers of research studies and experiments worldwide in both lightning suppression and lightning generation. In 2006, a record amount of forest was burned in the U.S., with millions of acres being burned.As well, the general pattern of precipitation has been abnormal. For instance, there has been a great deal of rainfall in the spring and summer over much of Texas. This follows a period of severe, longstanding drought for much of Texas. The rain that has been occurring in the spring and summer of 2007 has been at record level and for quite a long duration. This follows record droughts in the same region. With the destruction of the earth due to the drought, the heavy record rainfall resulted in little of the rain being absorbed into the earth that had been damaged by the drought, increasing the destruction to the earth, the potentialities for flooding and the lack of capture of the rainfall in the levels of freshwater.What has been seen as a result of these massively abnormal rainfall patterns is tremendous destruction to the earth, and very, very low fresh water levels, which have reached a level never seen before in history. There has also been a massive increase in the monitoring and measurement of the freshwater levels in the United States and other countries that matches in time the abnormal weather patterns, the severe flood and drought conditions and the crisis levels of freshwater loss both in the U.S. and worldwide.
There has been, for many regions of the United States since 2005, heavy rainfall in one region right next to areas experiencing severe drought conditions. For instance, the Northwestern United States tends to receive a relatively moderate or higher amount of rain naturally, given where it is sited and normal rainfall patterns. Instead, what has been occurring is, in some cases, record setting rainfall along the coast, with periods of little rainfall inland. Those areas that usually receive a fair amount of precipitation are receiving little at all. The result is record longstanding drought and large forest fires.In the spring and summer of 2007, there has been heavy massive precipitation and flooding in the central part of the United States, from Minnesota down to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. With a normal precipitation pattern, weather should be passing through the western states, dropping precipitation moving toward these states. Instead, the areas to the west of the states that are receiving record rainfall, are receiving little rainfall at all. The entire inland western United States is experiencing in many areas, severe drought.While little or no rain is being seen in regions west of areas that are getting record rainfall, such as Oklahoma and Texas, the precipitation and weather patterns that would naturally and normally be continuing past the central states and bringing precipitation further east have been abnormal as well. The areas east of the regions that are receiving record rainfall, Alabama and Georgia to the east of Oklahoma and Texas are receiving little rainfall at all, and are experiencing severe, abnormal drought.In looking at radar and satellite coverage in this time period, what is notable is a very heavy concentration of precipitation in one region, with little or no precipitation in the nearby regions. It appears that all the available precipitation for a region that would normally fall variably throughout the whole region is all concentrated in terms of precipitation and for very long periods of time, with the surrounding areas receiving little at all.What has also been seen since 2005, is rainfall that is concentrated over rivers that all feed into the same watershed areas, thus serving to inundate whole massive regions and affect areas downriver.With the heavy rainfall and flooding in the central part of the U.S. in the spring and summer of 2007, what has been seen is a path of storms and rainfall right over rivers, that serve to raise the water levels and saturate the region, these storms then, again in highly patterned what appear to be paths or tracks move to the east or west, often raining over other rivers, serving to, in a very short period of time, with no let up, rain heavily and steadily, serving to inundate the whole region, resulting in flooding.One of the increased capabilities that was implemented in 2005 was remote sensoring of both rivers and lakes in the continental United States as well as ground moisture levels. What has increased since this remote sensoring of rivers and lakes were implemented in 2005, has been massive flooding and inundation related to extremely high water levels in rivers and lakes, and nearby ground saturation, that with additional rainfall led to flooding. This was true with Hurricane Katrina, with the very high water levels of the Mississippi, Pearl, Biloxi and Atchafalaya Rivers, and Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. With the implementation of the ability to remote sensor monitor the water levels in these bodies of water in 2005, and the moisture content of the ground, what resulted was the capability to tell when and where the capacity for flooding had been reached. What has resulted from these increased capabilities has been not specifically an increased ability to forecast flooding, but an immediate increase in flooding due to heavy precipitation patterns over rivers, and coasts, all after the capacity to measure these waterways had been implemented.Like the hurricanes that have hit in the same region again and again in a short period of time, which serves to massively exponentially increase damage, with no or little time in between, these abnormal levels of precipitation, either abnormally high or low and in many cases alternating with each other, with little normal precipitation occurring at all, has massively accelerated destruction.Heavy rainfall occurring in concentrated regions for long periods of time has served to greatly exponentially increase the damage. If there is rain in an area, that lets up, the water level in the rivers, lakes, and waterways soon drop, and the ground loses moisture content within a few days. With these massive stationary, feeding into the same “watershed system” rainfall patterns, with no let up, what are set up are completely abnormal conditions for massive flooding, due to, in some cases, months of steady, uninterrupted rainfall concentrated on specific coasts, regions, and river and watershed systems to create megaflood conditions.As well, these flooding events are very like the hurricanes that have been seen in the last number of years in the abnormality of their massive scale of size.Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, in many ways, shared characteristics of the other massive flooding events in the United States since 2005 that were not as a result of hurricanes.The flooding that occurred in the Atlantic Coastal states in 2006 resulted from a number of storms in a row, and months of rainfall, some of it record amounts, in the region. In fact, this was similar to what had occurred on the Gulf Coast before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.Hurricane Katrina for example, and it’s wind speeds, did little damage to New Orleans. The damage was done by a massive “inundation event”, which was the result not just of what could be called “Hurricane Katrina” a single hurricane that hit New Orleans, but the superstorm called Hurricane Katrina, that had three separate eyewalls hitting the Mississippi River, the Pearl River and the Biloxi River, hundreds of miles apart, and backflowing them against the very high levels of water moving downriver to the ocean from both the region being inundated with earlier storms and hurricanes that had also tracked north and dumped a great deal of precipitation before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. What occurred with the Hurricane Katrina event might best be described as a massive “water inundation bomb event” with the massive levels of water flowing downriver from earlier heavy rainfall flowing down very high level waterways into the Gulf of Mexico, being hit by the “superhurricane Katrina with multiple eyewalls”, that hit specifically at the terminuses of the mouths of the three rivers with enough force to backflow them for miles. With the force of the water moving upriver hitting against the force of the very high water levels flowing down the rivers due to earlier storms and hurricanes, the result was a massive inundation event as the water flowed out of existing waterways which resulted in a massive destruction of rivers, wetlands, lakes and the surrounding land in the region as an absolutely massive region was inundated by this event.Although the destruction with Hurricane Katrina was described as being the result of just Hurricane Katrina, in fact, what created a large amount of the destruction; the massive flooding, was the result of not just one storm or hurricane, but a number of storms and hurricanes in a row that served to already inundate the Gulf Coast region before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast.In that sense, what appears to be this highly tracked methodical path of storms which has been occurring with both storms and hurricanes, has served to keep stationary; storms that expel a lot of rain that both affect certain regions and moving downriver, affect downriver watershed areas, with rain then often occurring in these areas downriver at the same time or subsequently. The result is a massive volume of water flowing through certain areas all at the same time. With regions that had received almost continuous rainfall for long periods of time, also receiving a large volume of water moving through the waterways from upriver rain, and an event of massive rainfall in a short period of time from storms or hurricanes, the result has been to flood and in these cases, massively inundate regions that had already received large amounts of almost continuous rainfall for long periods of time before.This was the case with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And it has been the case with a number of massive flooding events since.
In the spring and summer of 2007, what has been seen is quite heavy and almost continuous rain within the central United States Mississippi River and tributary rivers watershed down to the Gulf of Mexico. What has also been seen is fairly continuous intermittent rain on the Gulf of Mexico Coast, serving to keep the whole region saturated, and leading to massive flooding in a number of places.Throughout the spring and summer, precipitation and rainfall has been clustered in this region, raining first in one area, and often over one river system, sometimes for long periods of time, then moving to another nearby river system and again, often remaining there for long periods of time, raining for long periods. What has been seen resulting from this is heavy incidences of flooding throughout the Midwest in the spring and summer of 2007. This has included Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas. These are regions that feed into the tributaries of the Mississippi River and with rain falling heavily in the northern, central and the southern states, keeping the entire “north-south” watershed saturated, the result is that the entire massive watershed region has been fully saturated, so that heavy rainfall in one region, within a short period of time, within that watershed, will lead to flooding. As well, what has been seen is heavy flooding capacity rainfall after saturation levels have been reached in the northern states within this watershed, then the heavy rainfall pattern shifting south of there, so that the region south of the area that had just received a tremendous and flooding amount of rainfall to the north, is receiving not only the rainfall that is falling heavily and quickly in that already saturated area to the south, but also dealing with a huge volume of water flowing downriver through that region from the floods north of there, leading to massive flooding events. This is what has occurred with the record flooding in Oklahoma and Texas in the summer of 2007. This was the result not only of record short term rainfall that fell in Texas and Oklahoma, but a fully saturated ground and high water levels and water rushing downriver in those regions from heavy rainfall that had occurred north of there, and from multiple river systems feeding into it. This led to massive flooding, and as a result of what appears to be highly organized rainfall patterns. While the central regions were receiving massive rainfall, surrounding regions have received little or none, it appearing as if all the available precipitation was being centered in these regions, with the rainfall expelled there.What has also been seen in the summer of 2007, with this heavy rainfall and high river and ground levels of saturation, in the central Mississippi watershed, with rain both in specific areas and in watershed regions north of there, is heavy rainfall also coming up from the Gulf of Mexico to again inundate the same region, while heavy rainfall is also falling north of there to also bring heavy rainfall, so that the rainfall is coming from two different directions, to again inundate and cause flooding in the region.This is a pattern that has been seen in the flooding off the coasts of the United States, with rainfall moving along the rivers, to create high water levels and with heavy massive rainfall off the ocean onto land, leading to massive flooding along the coasts and inland. This happened in the Southwest in the winter of 2005-2006, it happened in the Northeast and Northcentral regions in the spring and summer of 2006. and it happened in the fall of 2006 in the Northwest. It is also what happened with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.What was seen before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast, were earlier hurricanes that both served to keep the Gulf Coast regions saturated and at very high water levels. These hurricanes then moved far north in very patterned ways along the Mississippi watershed river system, bringing a great deal of rain in the Mississippi River watershed, and with this heavy rainfall from previous hurricanes flowing downriver through the Mississippi and tributaries, it served to keep the Mississippi and other downriver rivers on the Gulf of Mexico at very high water levels so that when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit, it resulted in tremendous flooding.Heavy flooding has been seen with Tropical Storm Erin and Hurricane Dean, two storms in August 2007. These two storms, as has been the case for numerous hurricanes and tropical storms in the last four years, have centered in and around the Gulf of Mexico.Although Dean formed as a Tropical Storm first and in the Atlantic Ocean before Tropical Storm Erin, Erin formed as a tropical depression on the night of August 14, 2007 in the Central Gulf of Mexico. It strengthened from a tropical depression to a tropical storm, before making landfall early August 16 just north of Corpus Christi, Texas adding even more heavy rain to the region. Corpus Christi had already received over 18 inches of rain in July, a record for the month.Instead of weakening over land as tropical storms and hurricanes naturally do, as was reported in an AP news report, “the remnants of Tropical Storm Erin spawned flooding in Texas and Oklahoma. Instead of weakening as it moved inland, the storm produced winds of more than 80 miles per hour and heavy rain.”Tropical Storm Erin brought heavy rainfall further inland across Texas and Oklahoma. It is noted on a NASA website which measures precipitation levels, “the highest rainfall totals for the period are around six to eight inches over the central Texas Gulf Coast”. Rainfall continued on a northwest path, bringing more rain to already inundated regions in Central Texas and to Oklahoma, a region that has in the summer of 2007, already experienced record rainfall and flooding.Tropical Storm Erin served to reinundate regions that had already experienced record rainfall and flooding with record levels of rainfall in the spring and summer of 2007. It also brought heavy rainfall levels to the Central Gulf Coast of Texas, before moving north. It also brought heavy rainfall to Minnesota and Wisconsin.Some of the heavy rain that has been falling in the central United States, including in Oklahoma and Texas continued moving downriver through river systems which also affect Mexico to the south. Mexico was heavily affected by massive flooding from Hurricane Dean.Hurricane Dean formed in the Atlantic and was upgraded to a hurricane on August 16, 2007. On August 18th, a double eyewall was noted as Hurricane Dean, a category four hurricane, moved toward land and the island of Jamaica. Hurricane Dean resulted in a number of deaths in Jamaica and then in Haiti, and resulted in an estimate 1.4 billion dollars in damage in Jamaica alone.Hurricane Dean strengthened to a Category five hurricane in the waters off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula and slammed into Mexico’s Caribbean coast on August 21st, landing around the cruise ship port of Costa Maya, near the border with Belize. It passed through the Yucatan Peninsula, with heavy rainfall in the interior and moved into the Gulf of Mexico. On the Yucatan Peninsula, a number of cities and villages, both in the interior and on the coasts experienced damage. Coastal villages and cities damaged by Hurricane Dean on the Yucatan Peninsula included Mahahual and Ciudad del Carmen.In looking at the track of Hurricane Dean across the Yucatan, the track and damage “dovetailed with the part of the Yucatan that had been damaged with Hurricane Wilma in 2005. For instance, the coastal regions on the northern tip of the Yucatan Peninsula, including the cities of Cozumel, Cancun and Playa del Carmen suffered massive damage with Hurricane Wilma. With Hurricane Dean, what was damaged was a region on the Yucatan Peninsula just south of the damage and path of Hurricane Wilma in 2005, thus serving to “dovetail with” and continue on further south, the earlier damage on the Yucatan Peninsula with Hurricane Wilma.After crossing the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Dean made a second landfall near Tecolutla, Veracruz in Mexico on August 22 as a Category 2 hurricane, doing a great deal of damage in Veracruz.As had been the case with Tropical Storm Erin, although Hurricane Dean weakened over land, it brought massive amounts of rain, which did a tremendous amount of damage.In an AFP news report on August 23rd, it reported that the remnants of Hurricane Dean triggered mudslides in Mexico as the driving rain drenched a large part of the country, bringing the storm’s death toll to at least 25. And with river levels swelling rapidly and pounding rain hitting unstable mountain flanks, officials warned the crisis was far from over, even though Hurricane Dean was downgraded to a tropical depression. Several rivers burst their banks in the central Mexican state of Hidalgo, cutting off electricity and damaging farmland. More than 10,000 people in the state were evacuated to higher ground as river levels continued to rise.”An official in Mexico told Televisa television, “we remain concerned because Dean is covering much of the Republic of Mexico.” The flooding affected large parts of Mexico, with the states of Veracruz, Pueblo and Hidalgo being the most directly affected.These hurricanes are very like the hurricanes seen in the last decade and particularly in the last few years, with a massive increase in flooding related to hurricanes. Indeed most of the damage being seen with hurricanes in the last few years is related to flooding, which is not naturally, historically, what causes the most damage with hurricanes, which is wind damage.As well, what is seen with Tropical Storm Erin and with Hurricane Dean is a massive amount of rainfall falling in one region and within a very short period of time. With Tropical Storm Erin, this followed record amounts of rainfall in regions that had just been inundated with record rainfall and flooding from non-hurricane storms that all served to inundate the same region within a very short time period.In fact, severe weather and steady, heavy rainfall has continued with new storm systems in the same regions that were affected by Hurricanes Dean and Erin, although both hurricanes had passed.Not long after Hurricane Dean passed through Mexico, on August 27, 2007, the forecast for the next three days in the same region affected by Hurricane Dean in Mexico was, “showers, thunderstorms and flooding rain along the central Mexican coast. It noted, “The heavy rain from this feature will hammer some of the same areas of Mexico affected by Dean for the next 36 to 48 hours. Some of this feature’s moisture will also reach parts of deep South Texas.”What is notable about this weather front is that it is hitting exactly the same place hit by massive rainfall just earlier with Hurricane Dean. It also is affecting all the way north to deep South Texas an area affected by both Tropical Storm Erin and Hurricane Dean and large numbers of other storms to create massive flooding earlier.On August 29, 2007, there were heavy storms in Belize and in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo, just north of Belize that were devastated by Hurricane Dean.On August 29, 2007, there were storms and rainfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast, from Baton Rouge and New Orleans all the way across the northwest Gulf Coast region, including north of the Gulf Coast, in Houston and nearby Lake Charles, and further south, on the Gulf Coast of Texas, all the way down to Corpus Christi and south into Mexico. Thus, in the U.S. the entire northwest Gulf of Mexico region is receiving heavy continuous rainfall, after it had already received heavy rainfall from earlier storms, and flooding from high river levels coming down from the northern parts of Texas and Oklahoma and further north. This is like earlier similar patterns of heavy, continuous rainfall from various types of storms, all impacting a region in a very short period of time, rain coming from both inland and other storms, such as hurricanes from the ocean and all serving to massively saturate a region.Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast when the levels of water at the Gulf Coast were already very high and the entire region saturated from earlier storms and hurricanes.
What is also disturbing is the building of a special meteorological buoy at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami and it’s deployment in August 2007.U.S. governmental funds were spent on enhanced capability equipment and technology for research in this new meteorological buoy. This buoy project, which was supported by almost $1,000,000 of funding from the National Science Foundation’s Ocean Technology and Interdisciplinary Coordination program was developed and is being used by researchers at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami. These researchers, many of whom are not Americans, designed a buoy with both a rugged hull and instrumentation design for meteorological measurements in high wind and wave environments. It incorporates the latest sensors, some with special modifications to survive the extreme conditions.The buoy, which has been under design for several years, is being used this year, 2007, by researchers from the Rosenstiel School. The buoy, which was deployed off of Jacksonville, Florida in early August, 2007, will be deployed for several months.In noting the purpose of the buoy, Dr Neil Williams, Rosenstiel School scientist and project co-investigator said, “While the current mission for this platform is hurricane research, we have plans in place to use it for research in a variety of high sea state conditions around the world.”It was noted that one of the reasons for the specific rugged hull design and instrumentation of the buoy was because there were relatively few examples of data recovered from extreme wind conditions. In fact, with both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Wilma, the severity of the storms resulted in destruction to buoys and meteorological sensors, serving to limit the information available both for forecasting of these storms themselves and later efforts to reconstruct what had occurred in the storms.During Hurricane Wilma in the Gulf of Mexico, which severely affected the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, it was reported during the storm that due to the severity of the waves, several reporting buoys were unable to send retrievable information for use in forecasting and information about the storm. With Hurricane Katrina, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sought to reconstruct what had occurred after the hurricane, all the remote sensors that transmitted information had been destroyed on the coast itself and on the rivers. The only remote sensors still intact were a few in Lake Pontchartrain, as reported by a researcher working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thus in Hurricane Katrina as well, critical information needed to inform people of the severity of the hurricane and to reconstruct events after, was lost.This buoy, as noted, is to be used for research. The cost was tremendously high, almost a million dollars, and the question is why U.S. taxpayer money is being spent on research projects that allow gathering of information, in severe conditions, but are not being used to forecast these conditions to the National Hurricane Center or the National Weather Service or the American people. As well, as noted, this buoy is outfitted specifically for very severe conditions for information gathering and a question is why would there be an assumption in early August 2007 that in the next months there would be these very severe conditions that would require the use of this meteorological buoy in the Gulf of Mexico or on the Gulf or Atlantic coasts of the United States?
PART TWO
There has been concern in the past that given the continuing weather modification practices, including cloud seeding, and the massive amount of research specifically applicable to weather modification that has been done since, including active weather modification experimentation, by a number of governments around the world, that weather modification and the information gathering, experimentation, research, modeling and remote – sensoring is being used to directly modify the weather.Even by the 1970s, it was understood by the scientific communities around the world that there was, even at that point, enough information and enough researched use of weather modification and it’s effectiveness that it would be possible that weather could be used as a means of aggression by some governments against other countries. On December 10, 1976, the U.N. General Assembly adopted resolution 31/72, and in October, 5, 1978, it was entered into force, called the “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” This was after the U.S. Congress held hearings in 1972 and the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution in 1973 calling for an international agreement “prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war. As a result of this resolution, the President ordered the Department of Defense to undertake an in-depth review of the military aspects of weather and other environmental modification techniques. The result of this study and a subsequent interagency study led to the U.S. government’s decision to seek agreement with the Soviet Union to explore the possibilities of an international agreement. In August 1975, after a number of meetings and negotiations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the chief representatives of the U.S. and Soviet Union delegations to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD) tabled, in parallel, identical draft texts of a “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques”The Convention defines environmental modification techniques as changing — through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes — the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydro-sphere, and atmosphere, or of outer space. Changes in weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmental modification techniques.”In fact, what has been occurring for the last number of decades, in the U.S. and in much of the rest of the world, and particularly to a massively increased degree in the last number of years, is exactly that, which is noted as the result of environmental modification techniques; “Changes in weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmental modification techniques.” Article I sets forth the basic commitment: “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.” “Widespread” is defined as “encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers”; “long-lasting” is defined as “lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season”; and “severe” is defined as “involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.” One of the notable features of this passage is what is defined as “widespread” in the degree of environmental impact. “Widespread” is defined as “encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers.” In fact, naturally any weather related phenomena in terms of scale of damage would be considered massively large and widespread if it did impact an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers, as was noted in this 1977 document. The area damaged in Hurricane Katrina was 90,000 square miles, the size of the land mass of Britain. There was, with this resolution, an acknowledgement that weather modification was being done, which has certainly continued with cloud seeding and other techniques. This resolution, not only served to acknowledge that use, but to limit the use and purpose and work to ensure that any of these weather modification techniques would not be used for purposes of aggression against other countries.Article III of the resolution, included a passage about the sharing of research among countries, including that specific to weather modification research, experimentation and use in and of itself, and that research, data gathering, modeling, sensoring, simulation and experimentation that could be applicable to weather modification and of which there has been a tremendous amount since 1977.Article III, section 2 of the resolution says, “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement, and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.” There was clearly already an understanding that weather modification could affect change in the weather and this resolution served to underscore that understanding and sought to limit any use or connected to use to ensure that it was not used for aggression. It also served to work to ensure with this resolution, and understanding among a large number of nations that any shared information and cooperative ventures would not be used for purposes of aggression. And it also paved the way for much further increased international sharing and cooperation of research, data gathering, satellite and radar and remote sensoring information, and as noted with that as the purpose.What has been seen is with the increase of these capabilities and with the involvement of a number of countries in this research being done cooperatively, is, to all apparent with the increase of these capabilities, not greatly improved forecasting, but a massive increase in severely abnormal weather, beyond anything ever seen naturally and historically; worldwide, in scope, occurrence, and severity.The countries listed as working with the United States in NASA sponsored research are Japan, Germany, Britain, France and Canada. The governments of Japan and Germany are working on more than one project with the United States in environmental research and are heavily involved in environmental research in their own countries and other countries. In the case of Japan, their “Earth Simulator” is the largest supercomputer in the world which has as it’s sole function supercomputing of weather and environmental variables. Although the weather forecasting worldwide has not improved appreciably with these types of capabilities, which is the reason given for the Earth Simulator, the earth simulator itself does have the capacity necessary for weather modification. Weather modification, unlike weather forecasting, requires massive computational capabilities running numerous weather and environmental models which are applicable to weather modification but are useless for weather forecasting. In fact, as environmental and weather computer simulation modelers have long known, and described as the “Butterfly Effect” by Charney, one of the early environmental and weather modelers, the kind of weather and environmental computing being done by Japan’s Earth Simulator, is in and of itself, useless for weather forecasting as the variables of prospective natural weather are naturally inexact and the exponential amplitude of these natural variables, make weather forecasting using these modeling methods fully inexact and useless for weather forecasting. However, this weather and environmental modeling and these massive computational capabilities are essential for weather modification.Japan and Germany have also notably as nations benefitted economically from the uses that are being made of the so called “global warming” and problems with carbon dioxide that are being ascribed as the “cause” of global warming and abnormal and severe weather. In reality, carbon dioxide levels in most countries have decreased, not increased. That is certainly true of the US where with air pollution controls instituted in the 1970’s, the carbon dioxide levels are far lower than they were in the 1950’s and 1960’s when cities like Pittsburgh were so polluted it was sometimes difficult to see through the smog. Although there has always been a “heat island” effect, with temperatures being relatively warmer in populated areas where there is higher energy expenditure, it is directly relatable to that and has no effect on the weather at all, either in terms of temperatures rising “generally” because of carbon dioxide or other pollutants or weather becoming more severe due to this cause.However, carbon dioxide levels like the earlier abnormal weather severity have been ascribed to two different causes at two times that served to benefit Japan and Germany financially and detriment other countries. In the late 1980’s, the severe and abnormal weather, instead of being ascribed to high CO2 levels was ascribed as being caused by a “hole in the ozone layer”. With the use of this described cause, with no evidence to back it up as is the case now with ascribing the cause as being “high CO2 levels”, the claim that global warming was caused by a hole in the ozone layer caused by chemical CFC’s resulted in the banning of products contained CFC’s. Most of these products were made by US chemical companies, just as Japan and Germany were jointly targeting chemical companies both in the US and worldwide.At the present time, Japan and Germany are both haranguing and pressuring other countries worldwide to “cut CO2 emissions in their countries” due to “global warming” and presenting themselves and their products as “earth friendly”. However, in their actual actions connected to various treaties and pacts being used politically, such as the Kyoto Pact, it is quite clear these two countries are not “environmentally friendly” and not interested in cutting emissions in their countries and with their products, but are interested in doing it in other countries to work to attack and destroy other country’s economies, which they are presently doing worldwide generallyThe cap and trade system and the emission cuts being prescribed using international venues and pacts such as the Kyoto Pact, are being used by Japan and Germany to force other countries to massively cut industrial production in their countries, while Japan and Germany are using the same “cap and trade system” to, instead, of cutting emissions of their own products or cutting industrial production in their own countries, instead are “trading” with other countries to be allowed to not cut industrial and energy production in their countries which would hurt their economies, but instead be “credited” if they sell and produce energy in other countries using “cleaner technology” such as gas, instead of coal. In this way, Japan and Germany worldwide are taking over national energy production in other countries, displacing domestic producers and gaining control of energy supplying worldwide and destroying national control of domestic energy production. They are also working to destroy other country’s domestic industrial production “overall” and in specific industries, such as autos and air transport, while also targeting those economic sectors.In the case of automobiles, while Japan and Germany have jointly been targeting the US auto industry and the auto industry worldwide, they have been making vehicles that are certainly no more energy efficient or less polluting, they are using this to attack and destroy other country’s auto industries, including the US. They have pressured and coerced the US to force US automakers, who tended to make larger vehicles, since the Japanese and Germans had already taken over the US small car market, to destroy their production of larger vehicles, using the fake rationale of ‘cutting emissions” to pressure US companies aided by the US government being pressured by Japan and Germany internationally to massively cut their production of larger vehicles. This has served to destroy production of US vehicles overall, since this is what US automakers had a larger share of auto production in. At the same time, Japan and Germany have massively increased their production of larger vehicles being built and imported into the US, that are no more fuel efficient than US ones, to target the US auto companies and industry to destroy it, so they could gain monopoly control. While Japan now has eight auto companies, centered in Japan, and Germany five, centered in Germany, the US which had three auto companies, has two in bankruptcy and the other severely struggling economically. At the same time Japan increased it’s imports of Japanese vehicles from approximately 1.5 million a year in 1996 to 2.5 million a year in the last couple of years, while only allowing 14,000 US vehicles into Japan, serving to massively displace and assault US automakers while also working to force production cuts using the issue of auto emissions.The auto industry is a specific industry, however, in other transport industries such as airlines, the same pressure is being exerted by these two nations and as well these forced cuts are cutting “industrial production “overall” to attack other country’s economies generally.
https://sites.google.com/site/abnormalweatherweatherwar/Another text of this
In 1991 there were four hurricanes and four tropical storms, none hit near the same place, or near where they had hit in previous years. In 1992, there were four hurricanes, two tropical storms, and one subtropical storm, none near each other. In 1993, there were four hurricanes and four tropical storms, none in the same place. And in 1994, there were three hurricanes and four tropical storms, none in the same place.In 1995, there was a massive increase in the number of hurricanes, their severity and the similarity of their routes. In 1995, there were 12 hurricanes and 9 tropical storms, a massive jump in number from the years before. Another difference was the route of these hurricanes. Unlike hurricanes in previous years, where a large number formed and dissipated as hurricanes without hitting land; from 1995 on, these hurricanes tended to almost all hit land, and cause damage. In looking at the storm tracks of hurricanes prior to 1995, the hurricane routes tended to meander and drift, often over open ocean, nowhere near land before dissipating. In looking at the storm tracks of hurricanes after 1995, what were seen were often close to straight lines that tended to occur predominantly over land, incurring a great deal of damage.Although it is unusual for a hurricane to naturally make landfall more than once due to the natural dissipation of the hurricane after making landfall, many of these hurricanes, unlike earlier hurricanes, made landfall a number of times, and some of them raked along coastlines, some hundreds of miles inland, as hurricanes on land.What also increased after 1995 in the Atlantic Ocean hurricanes, were hurricanes that affected and were clustered around the United States. With what could be described as very long “tracks”, these hurricanes, that naturally before had formed and dissipated in short periods of time, usually in the Atlantic Ocean, now, in 1995 ran along very straightened and like one another “paths” or ‘tracks”, affecting large areas of coastline in the United States. In 1995, five hurricanes and one tropical storm followed a very similar track, moving up the entire coast of the U.S. Atlantic coast. Three hurricanes and two tropical storms hit the Gulf Coast of the U.S. In 1995, eight hurricanes and three tropical storms hit the U.S. and most of them, including in the Gulf of Mexico, moved hundreds and in some cases thousands of miles inland. This is in contrast to earlier hurricane seasons, where in many cases, in numerous years, few hurricanes even caused much impact in the United States at all.In 1996, there were nine hurricanes and four tropical storms. As in 1995, a number hit the United States. Six hurricanes and tropical storms raked along the entire coast of the United States Atlantic Coast. Of these 13 hurricanes and tropical storms, 12 hit land in the U.S., Mexico and the islands in the Caribbean. A number of these storms hit land numerous times, unlike years prior to 1995, when the majority of hurricanes didn’t affect land at all.In 1997, there were three hurricanes, four tropical storms and 1 subtropical storm. Four of these storms also tracked the Atlantic coast of the United States. Five hit the United States and two of the other storms were close to the islands.In 1998, there were ten hurricanes and four tropical storms. The devastating Hurricane Mitch, killed thousands in Honduras. What was also notable this year as well as other years after 1995, were the massively long distances in which these hurricanes and tropical storms held together. Before 1995, most hurricanes were of short distance and duration before they broke up. What has been seen since 1995 are hurricanes organized as hurricanes for massive distances, and long periods of time. For instance in 1997, some of the hurricanes tracked from the African/European coast of the Atlantic Ocean, moved all the way across the Atlantic Ocean as hurricanes, ran along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, and then crossed the Atlantic Ocean all the way back to Europe, staying organized and together as hurricanes longer than any hurricanes ever seen before. A large number of these storms also hit the United States, Mexico and the islands in the Caribbean.In 1999, there were 8 hurricanes and four tropical storms. A number of the hurricanes and storms in 1999 hit Mexico and even Central America, which doesn’t naturally get many hurricanes. In 1998, a number of hurricanes hit the exact same place in North Carolina’s Outer Banks. The worst of these hurricanes was Hurricane Floyd, which followed earlier hurricanes; Dennis, in 1998, and hurricanes the year before that had made landfall at the exact same point on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. This also has been characteristic of the hurricanes and tropical storms since 1995, a number hitting either in the exact same place or close to it, and many following the exact same trajectory or close to it, as well. What is also notable is a “clustering of hurricanes and tropical storms” very close in time in the exact same area, which serves to create a massive amount of damage in one area in a short period of time, both in the same year and in the subsequent, close in time years. In 1999, the storms Lenny and Jose, both followed the exact same track in the islands. Previous to 1995, what was characteristic of the path of hurricanes were that they were random, usually not very damaging, and often completely not affecting land. They were storms that formed and dissipated with no pattern and formed as tropical storms and hurricanes previously, in places and time very distant from one another. What is striking about the hurricanes after 1995, is that they tended to be almost uniformly in very similar paths in both place and time. In the case of Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Dennis was still affecting the northern part of the U.S. while Hurricane Dennis had already made landfall and was following in the same path behind it.In 2000, there were 8 hurricanes, six tropical storms and one subtropical storm. A number of these hurricanes again hitting land, including the United States and a number hitting Mexico, including the Yucatan, as had been the case the year before.In 2001, there were nine hurricanes and six tropical storms. Unlike previous years since 1995, there was only one hurricane along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. That was Tropical Storm Allison, early in the season, from June 5 through 19th. There were a number of storms in Mexico and also two that again hit Central America, Tropical Storm Chantal and Hurricane Iris. Within a few short years, three hurricanes had hit Central America. In fact, in terms of unnaturalness, two storms in 2001 were virtually in the same place at the same time. Hurricane Iris was a hurricane from October 4 through 9th. Tropical Storm Jerry, a tropical storm from October 6 through October 8th, was virtually in the same location, within the same time period as Hurricane Iris. Hurricanes and tropical storms naturally require great distances to form with the requirement of different levels of clouds rotating in the same direction at the same speed, what was seen with Hurricane Iris and Tropical Storm Jerry were two storms that were slightly apart from each other in distance yet formed and held together as a tropical storm and hurricane, when naturally the forces of the one storm, would not have allowed the second storm to form.What has also changed and not something naturally seen before 1995 have been hurricanes that have stayed organized as hurricanes for very large periods of time and eyes that have tended to be very large, like the hurricanes themselves, and well defined. As well, something is occurring since 1995 which are called “eye wall replacements” or “eye wall replacement cycles”. In natural hurricanes, the hurricane may form and unform, but there are not two separate distinct eyewalls, separate from one another. In fact this is what is being seen with many of the hurricanes since 1995, with a new eyewall or center of the hurricane forming in a place separate from where the hurricane has already formed, yet fairly close to it. What appears to be occurring are really multiple hurricanes forming and existing at the same time, in very close proximity to each other, something that doesn’t occur naturally, as the forces that would cause one eyewall and a hurricane to form, would, in close proximity to another, cause it to dissipate, and in fact, the strong forces of the existing hurricane, would not allow another eye and hurricane to form in close proximity, due to it’s strong winds and rotational force.This was seen with satellite photos of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, where over the Gulf of Mexico, what was seen were two eyewalls, at the same time, a fair distance from one another. The second eyewall rotated a distance from the first, and in competition with it, which would naturally result in the breaking up of the hurricane. What this really amounts to are what could be called “double or multiple hurricanes”. This cannot occur naturally, and has not been seen before this time period. It has been seen in numerous hurricanes since 1995, and has resulted in absolutely massive hurricanes, beyond a size ever before seen naturally which affects large areas of land all at once. Just in 2005, this was true of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.With Hurricane Iris and Tropical Storm Jerry in 2001, both unnaturally virtually in the same place at the same time, this resulted in a much larger degree of damage with what could be called “double or even larger hurricanes” with what is notable in some of these hurricanes, the eye dissolving, as a new one is forming further along the route, while the effects of the earlier eye and hurricane still exist, creating what could be called fully unnatural “megahurricanes”.Satellite photos of Hurricane Katrina, in the Gulf of Mexico, showed an eyewall that had formed south of New Orleans, with the hurricane winds whirling around the center. Within the outer bands of this hurricane, it showed another eyewall, further east of New Orleans, south of the coast of Mississippi existing at the same time. This “multiple hurricane mass” affected a massive region in the Gulf of Mexico itself. It then headed north with what could best be termed “multiple hurricanes forming a megahurricane per effect” hitting the Gulf Coast of the United States. This resulted in massive damage along virtually the entire coast of the U.S. Gulf Coast of Mexico from Alabama to the Louisiana border with Texas, moving a very long distance inland as a “megahurricane” as well.With Katrina, although the official track of the hurricane showed Hurricane Katrina and the eyewall, hitting just west of New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi River, the actual effect of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast showed evidence of multiple eyes of multiple hurricanes hitting the Gulf Coast at once. One of the effects of Hurricane Katrina was the eyewall of the hurricane, hitting the mouth of the Mississippi River with massive force, backflowing the Mississippi River into Lake Pontchartrain, which flooded New Orleans. Eyewalls of hurricanes also hit at the mouths of the Pearl River and the Biloxi River hundreds of miles away. The eyewalls of these hurricanes also hit with such force that they backflowed both the Biloxi River for miles and the Pearl River for miles. The Pearl River backflowed into Lake Borgne which massively flooded the region connected all the way to the Mississippi River backflow into Lake Pontchartrain. It created a massive degree of flooding, damage and inundation in an area the size of Great Britain.What is fully unnatural with the hurricanes since 1995 is both the stability of the hurricanes themselves in duration and size, and large, well formed eyewalls as well.In looking at hurricane satellite photos since 1995 what is seen with the tracking of the hurricanes are what appear to be at the same time “dissolving eyewalls and reforming eyewalls further along a “route” or track” where the hurricane moves next. So that the hurricane either doesn’t diminish in strength at all, or diminishes in many cases, over ocean or water then intensifies as it nears land or in some cases, is actually on land. This is fully unnatural. Hurricanes gain their energy from the interaction with the ocean and intensify more naturally in the ocean and not near land, something which has not been seen recently.What has also changed since 1995, is the, in some cases doubling or tripling of the number of hurricanes over average numbers before 1995.There was no reason for the number of hurricanes to massively jump in 1995, and to a number far beyond what had been seen before. This is indicative of larger numbers of formed hurricanes, and in fact, there is hurricane research being done that has been done specifically on tropical storm genesis. There was a research study done in the summer of 2007, done specifically just on tropical storm genesis in or near the Gulf of Mexico. This research was conducted through the CIMSS center at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.What is notable about the hurricanes since 1995 is they appear to be actually a number of hurricanes, forming, then dissipating in what would be more normal hurricane time periods but with another “hurricane forming” nearby, to give the impression of one hurricane, when in actuality, it appears to be several different hurricanes, with as one is dissipating, another one with a completely separate eye and hurricane forming not far from the hurricane that is dissipating.Naturally, hurricanes or tropical storms are found nowhere near each other at the same time. Hurricanes form over oceans because they need the vast space of oceans to organize as hurricanes which requires that three atmospheric layers be moving rotationally together in the exact same direction, at the same speed at the same time. These events naturally occur randomly, they occur naturally only in oceans and they occasionally make landfall naturally. It is extremely rare historically naturally for hurricanes to hit land more than once, as hitting land and the resistance on hitting land in and of itself always naturally breaks up hurricanes.It is often reported in reporting on these hurricanes since 1995 that there is an “eyewall replacement cycle”. The inference is that the eyewall strengthens and weakens within the same spot in the center of the hurricane as that is the center around which the hurricane moves. In looking at satellite photos of these hurricanes and tropical storms since 1995, this is not seen to be the case at all. The what are being called “replacement eyewalls” are forming in a separate area from the preexisting hurricane, yet close to it, yet resulting in the destruction of neither. These “replacement eyewalls and the hurricane winds around them, might be called “new hurricanes”, which is seen outright with Hurricane Iris and Tropical Storm Jerry in 2001 with two hurricanes existing side by side, something that can’t happen naturally.These new “megahurricane events” appear to be what could be called “tracked hurricanes” where instead of one hurricane that has for instance moved from Florida all the way up the Atlantic Coast, what is seen is, as one hurricane and it’s eyewall fades, it is immediately subsumed into and pulled along by a new eyewall and hence a new hurricane, that has formed just north of it, and serves to keep the effects of the storm going and on very specific and what appear to be directed “tracks”. These are not single hurricanes, these are hurricane after hurricane after hurricane along specific “tracks or routes”. As soon as one starts dimunition of effect, it is “picked up” by the start of another hurricane forming with a new eyewall further along the “hurricane track”. This also accounts for the very precise and exact landfalls and paths that have been seen again and again with completely different hurricanes since 1995. These hurricanes give the appearance of being fully directed per movement and force.In 2002, there were four hurricanes and eight tropical storms. What is notable about the storms in this year, is that a number of them didn’t form in the Atlantic, but formed in the islands or quite close to land. Tropical Storm Fay and Tropical Storm Hanna, formed right next to land. In the case of Tropical Storm Arthur and Tropical Storm Bertha, they strengthened into tropical storms on land, not in the ocean at all. This is another massively abnormal phenomenon which has been seen with hurricanes since 1995.An example is Hurricane Wilma in 2005, where upon approaching Florida, instead of diminishing and weakening upon hitting land, which always happens naturally as the hurricanes lose their ocean source of energy and run into resistance on land, which naturally breaks up the hurricanes. In the case of Hurricane Wilma in 2005, it strengthened from a category 2 hurricane over water, to a category 3 hurricane in strength, after hitting land. Hurricane Wilma not only strengthened but widened upon hitting land in Florida. In fact, fully unnaturally, there was no weakening of Hurricane Wilma over land at all in Florida, remaining a category three hurricane per measurements all the way across Florida and on the Atlantic coast.As well, what was notable with Hurricane Wilma was that the winds and effects of Hurricane Wilma were the same on both the Atlantic and the Gulf Coasts, as Hurricane Wilma started moving onto the Gulf side of the state and moving across the state.Hours later, the hurricane and it’s effects ended at the same time in both places, having done as much, if not more damage on the Atlantic Coast, at the exact same time as on the Gulf Coast. It appeared that in fact, these were two different hurricanes both in opposition to each other naturally on both sides of Florida at the same time. Although the ocean is needed as a source of water and the existence of hurricanes themselves, in the case of Wilma, the hurricane strengthened over land. In the cases of Tropical Storms Arthur in Bertha, in 2002 they hadn’t even strengthened into tropical storms in the ocean, but over land.In 2003, there were seven hurricanes and nine tropical storms. What is notable about the hurricane season in 2003, was the large number of storms in the Gulf of Mexico. Six of the storms were in the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is not a place that naturally experiences many hurricanes. With hurricanes naturally forming in the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean islands form a natural barrier to there being much hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico. What was also seen in this and the subsequent two years, were not only large numbers of hurricanes hitting the Gulf of Mexico itself and the coasts and land on the Gulf of Mexico, but hurricanes forming in the Gulf of Mexico itself, instead of the Atlantic Ocean. This is not something that naturally happens. Hurricanes have always naturally formed in the oceans. In fact, hurricanes do not naturally form nor strengthen, in smaller bodies of water, such as the Gulf of Mexico.Given the smaller body of water in the Gulf of Mexico, the category strength of the hurricane and the winds and waves are naturally less than would be seen in the ocean, due to the smaller size of the body of water. Fully unnaturally, with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, they massively strengthened in the Gulf of Mexico, with tremendous force winds and waves.What occurred with the massively high wind and wave speeds with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, was specifically a tremendous amount of damage to the oil rigs and oil infrastructure sited in the Gulf of Mexico itself. These force winds and waves have never been seen in the Gulf of Mexico before, and they don’t naturally occur there. This damage occurred in the same year that massive destruction was done to a large part of the Gulf Coast as well. And destruction that also served to damage the oil and gas industry and infrastructure, for instance; on land oil and gas facilities and refining and production facilities. And like the other changes in hurricanes seen since 1995, they served to do a tremendous amount of damage.In 2004, there were nine hurricanes, five tropical storms and one subtropical storm. The 2004 hurricane season was massively destructive in both the United States and in the Caribbean. A large number of the hurricanes and storms tracked up the full coast of the United States. A number of these storms moved along the same route, following one another. For example, Tropical Storm Bonnie ran along the Atlantic coast of the United States, with Hurricane Charley following the same track close behind. A number were clustered in the state of Florida and did massive damage. Hurricane Charley hit the center of Florida before moving north, and Hurricane Frances impacted almost the exact same place in Florida. It wreaked enormous destruction on the northwest Gulf of Mexico coast in Florida, before crossing and moving up the Atlantic coast of the United States. Hurricane Ivan hit an enormous number of areas. In the U.S., it hit the Gulf of Mexico coast, moved halfway up the interior of the United States, moved to the Atlantic Coast, and instead of moving north, headed straight south along the Atlantic Coast, slicing through the state of Florida, before exiting on the Gulf coast of Florida, and then heading back up to make another landfall on the Gulf of Mexico coast.. Hurricane Ivan, and it’s route is one of the most representative storms seen since 1995, where it almost appears as if these are a number of separate hurricanes “stitched together” and called a single hurricane” with the hurricane track making inexplicable stops and turns in direction, the result of which serves to do a massive amount of damage to a large number of places. With these hurricanes, what has been seen is no dimunition with landfall, even with these storms hitting land over and over, and in a number of cases, moving along inland as tropical storms and hurricanes with no weakening of effect. Hurricane Jeanne in Florida followed the exact same track in Florida as Hurricane Frances had just before it, hitting the exact same area over again, creating much more damage than occurred with one and allowing no chance for recovery from Hurricane Frances.In 2005, there were 14 hurricanes, 12 tropical storms and one subtropical storm. There have never been so many tropical storms and hurricanes in one year and for the first time, the named storms moved into the Greek alphabet. In 2005, the hurricane season, which normally diminishes after October, continued all the way into 2006 with Tropical Storm Zeta.As well as hurricanes moving along what appear to be directed tracks since 1995, what is occurring are hurricanes remaining stationary for unnaturally long periods of time. In the late 1980’s, Hurricane Hugo set a record for the length of time that a hurricane had affected one area, with a large increase over the previous record, remaining stationary for 12 straight hours.Hurricanes, with their high wind speeds, are naturally fast moving. They have been described as “blowing through”. In fact, what has been seen since 1995 is a massive unnaturalness in this as well. With hurricanes or severe storms, the wind itself, due to the velocity and speed of the wind, blows the storm or hurricane and the effects of the hurricane and storm, through very quickly.Although naturally, non storm related weather which does not include high winds, can rain for some days on end, with storms and hurricanes, the characteristic high winds associated with storms, tropical storms and hurricanes, in and of themselves, mean that these storms are of short duration.What has been seen since 1995, are hurricanes, tropical storms and storms that have high winds that would naturally blow through very quickly acting at the same time, like what can only be called “stationary fronts”, which in and of themselves per action, are the exact opposite of hurricanes and tropical or other storms.In 2005, Hurricane Wilma and it’s actions over the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, was not at all characteristic of a natural hurricane. It was characteristic of a stationary front. Hurricane Wilma formed in the Caribbean. It formed very quickly with the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded, the lower the barometric pressure serving to intensify the storm. It moved very quickly directly to the Yucatan Peninsula. Hurricane Wilma sat stationary off the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico for two and one half days, or 60 hours, not moving, breaking the previous record of 12 hours with Hurricane Hugo. During that period of time, it dumped massive amounts of rain over the Yucatan Peninsula, wreaking a great amount of damage, including in Cancun and Cozumel at the same time. It then, with nothing to account for the increase in speed, picked up speed, sped west into the Gulf of Mexico, did a complete opposite turn to the east toward Florida, with no dimunition in speed, and sped to the Gulf Coast of Florida, where it intensified after making landfall. Naturally, hurricanes are fast moving, the wind speeds characteristic of hurricanes, moving the storms along and historically, naturally there is little flooding connected with hurricanes, as they move too fast for much rain to fall.What has been seen in hurricane seasons since 1995 has been clustering of damage and hurricanes in the same region or place in the same year and in the few years before and after, serving to massively damage whole regions in a short period of time. This is fully unlike what has been seen historically with hurricanes, with very few doing much damage, many not affecting land and no pattern at all historically with hurricanes of their hitting areas even close to each other in the same year or in successive years.. What has been seen since 1995, both with storms generally and hurricanes as well, are storms that hit the same areas and regions, over and over again, either right after each other or close in time or in the next couple of years, so that these regions are constantly what could be considered “under assault” and are not able to recover. This too is fully unnatural. Although there are some areas in which hurricanes occur naturally, no places have been subject to massive damage from hurricanes in a short period of time. It has been rare for even those areas that experience the most effects from hurricanes, the islands in the Atlantic and Pacific to experience severe hurricanes. In places like the Gulf of Mexico, and the land surrounding it and the Atlantic coast of the United States, the occurrence is rarer still. Before 1995, it had been decades since a hurricane had done any substantial damage at all in the Gulf of Mexico.These clustered and “same track” hurricanes and storms hitting the same area, serve to destroy and duress whole regions in very short periods of time. This was true of North Carolina in the later 1990’s, this was true of Florida in 2004 and 2005 and this was true of the entire Gulf of Mexico region in 2005. In the hurricane season of 2005, 14 tropical hurricanes and tropical storms hit the Gulf of Mexico and the surrounding coasts and land masses.Since 2003 what appears to be occurring is specifically and appears per effect and timing, planned, destruction of the coasts, cities and communities all along the Gulf of Mexico and the waterways leading into the Gulf of Mexico.In 2004, Hurricanes Jeanne and Frances, occurring one right after the other, followed the same route on the Northwest Gulf Coast of Florida, decimating the region.In 2005, both Florida generally, as well as the Gulf Coast of Florida, again experienced devastating hurricanes. The Northwest Gulf Coast of Florida was again hit as well. Hurricane Katrina decimated hundreds of miles along the Gulf Coast of the United States from Alabama to Louisiana and hundreds of miles inland. The destruction on the coast and inland from Hurricane Rita, which occurred a month later, “dovetailed” with the destruction on the coast from Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Rita’s path hit exactly where Hurricane Katrina had ended, decimating the Louisiana coast which had not been decimated in Hurricane Katrina and continuing further west into Texas, as well as hundreds of miles inland as well.Thus, these hurricanes, occurring in quick succession in 2004 and 2005, and with destruction beyond anything ever seen before in scope and damage, served to decimate Florida and the U.S. Gulf Coast of Mexico, from North Florida to Texas.In 2005, and the few years preceding it, there has also been massive amounts of destruction due to hurricanes in other areas in the Gulf of Mexico and the areas which adjoin the Gulf of Mexico.This has included not only increases in the destruction caused by hurricanes in the islands in or near the Gulf of Mexico, but in the country of Mexico itself. Mexico has seen a tremendous increase in hurricanes the last number of years. With just Hurricane Wilma in 2005, it served to destroy large areas of coast on the Yucatan Peninsula and created a great deal of destruction in Cozumel and Cancun. What is also notable about the region in the Gulf of Mexico and the areas adjoining it, is that in these recent years, there have been a number of hurricanes which affected the countries of Central America as well. The entire region surrounding the Gulf of Mexico, has been hit again and again in the last few years by hurricanes. Cuba as well, has been affected by repeat hurricanes.These regions too, abut the Gulf of Mexico and the waterways moving into the Gulf of Mexico. And these coasts as well are being massively affected.Hurricane Wilma in 2005, also hit the island of Cuba. It created a great deal of destruction in the city of Havana. Just as there was a breach in the protective retaining levees in New Orleans, causing massive damage to the city of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; in Cuba, during Hurricane Wilma, there was a breach in a protective barrier that had had no problems for a century, serving to create a condition for massive inundation of the city of Havana itself. Thus, after the end of the hurricane season of 2005, there was massive destruction in the Gulf of Mexico cities of New Orleans, Cancun, Cozumel and Havana. As well, what was seen in large areas of the Gulf Coasts of these countries, was massive destruction along the coasts, for hundreds and hundreds of miles, serving to in effect, destroy and clear the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico in the United States in the north, in Mexico, in Central America, in Cuba and in neighboring islands.
What occurred after the mapping and measuring of the coasts with SLOSH and the implementation of the upgraded technology of GOES in 1994, was an increase in the number, severity and damage connected specifically with those things for which information was being gathered, and monitored, such as hurricanes.For example, after the mapping and measuring of the coastline, and modeling done to ascertain where the more likely areas for flooding and destruction were, subsequent hurricanes made exact hurricane landfall specifically at points in areas which did serve to create a great deal of damage. North Carolina’s Outer Banks, suffered a tremendous amount of destruction, when hurricane after hurricane made landfall in the exact same spot culminating in Hurricane Floyd which made landfall at the exact spot Hurricane Dennis had while Hurricane Dennis was still moving north on the Atlantic Coast when Hurricane Floyd made landfall.The mapping, measuring and remote sensoring done for the SLOSH program required a great deal of work on the part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other national and local governmental bodies, and a great deal of expense.The reason given for SLOSH, was to map the regions on the coast that were specifically subject to hurricanes, from Texas to Maine. What happened was an increase in severe hurricanes after SLOSH had been run, including hurricanes like Hurricane Andrew. Hurricane Andrew, although not a hurricane that created a great deal of flooding, was another very large hurricane event, with very high winds that did a tremendous amount of damage to existing buildings.Just as was the case with storm surge and flooding and an increase in hurricanes and destruction that occurred after SLOSH had been run and GOES instituted, there had been earlier significant upgrades in technology and monitoring capabilities related to other weather phenomenon that had also seen increases in incidence and severity after the research and upgrades in technological measuring, modeling and monitoring. These included wind speeds with storms. These wind speeds have more than doubled from what occurred naturally before the research and advances in technological and monitoring upgrades, with wind speeds now seen with tornadoes and other storms having doubled over what was measured with wind speeds before then. This followed a great deal of research, modeling, information gathering, and monitoring of wind speeds and cyclonic activities, at, for example, the National Severe Storms Laboratory, which researched tornadoes, and their genesis and intensification. There were numerous research projects, including an atmospheric wave generation research project with the National Severe Storms Laboratory and connected research into cyclones at several universities, such as the University of Chicago, from the 1960’s on. Many of these research projects and experimental laboratories, for example the National Severe Storms Laboratory and the National Hurricane Research Laboratory had a great deal of input from other countries, both in setting up the programs, and the areas of study that would be researched.
Recently, in 2005, there has been, a number of significant enhancements of capabilities to gather information, model information, remote-sensor and monitor atmospheric and ground level conditions that has also coincided with a massive increase in the severe weather phenomenon that is being measured and monitored. In recent years, the entire continental United States, the coast of the United States and coastal regions, and it’s inland bodies of water, such as rivers and lakes, have been mapped and measured, and remote – sensoring capabilities installed.Not only have the coasts, the land masses and the inland bodies of water, including rivers and lakes, been minutely mapped, studied and researched for inundation capabilities, this has also been done for many of the cities of the United States, including very detailed mapping, measuring and remote sensoring monitoring of the bodies of water and coasts near cities, nearby rivers and lakes adjacent to cities, and a massive degree of measuring, mapping, photographing and remote sensoring for inundation capabilities in cities themselves. This has included a tremendous amount of research of U.S. city sewer systems, drinking water systems, retention water facilities, drainage systems, water runoff systems, levees, dams, canals and bridge and port structures, and the cities modeled in three dimensional form, including existing buildings, and structures, including subterranean ones, such as sewer and subway systems and pumping systems.What happened with Hurricane Katrina, was a massive inundation event that was caused by three eyewalls hitting three different mouths of rivers and backflowing and inundating and overflowing the rivers, lakes and canals as well. What also occurred was water that didn’t drain from the city of New Orleans, the failure of a number of pumps and pumping stations, and the inexplicable destruction of canals that served to hold water from getting into the city of New Orleans, such as the 17th Street Canal adjoining Lake Pontchartrain, quite far inland, while canals and levees that served to retain water in the city, that were much closer to the coast, weren’t damaged at all. What also failed was the New Orleans sewer system, which failed to drain water out of the city. None of these systems had ever failed before in the history in New Orleans for centuries before.Before Hurricane Katrina struck, the coasts, rivers, lakes, canals, levees and Mississippi River diversions had been studied extensively, and mapped, measured and were being monitored with remote sensors.The city of New Orleans; it’s structures, the canals, levees, bridges, pumping systems, sewer systems and it’s inundation capabilities, was also massively and extensively studied, researched and mapped, and remote sensors installed in the few years before Hurricane Katrina struck.
The reason given for the SLOSH program and the mapping, measuring, modeling and remote sensoring was to be able to more accurately monitor hurricanes along the coast.Instead what occurred was an increase in intensity and severity of these hurricanes along the coast of the United States.There has been no reason given for the massive amount of research, information gathering, mapping, measuring, modeling, and remote sensoring installation and monitoring of the entire United States and offshore coastal regions that has occurred in the last number of years. These areas are not subject to hurricanes, nor is there generally any history of massively abnormal weather occurring in the continental United States, with any frequency, to make this massive expenditure in time, tax dollars and effort worthwhile.What was measured and mapped with SLOSH, was not only geologic and natural features, but also all existing manmade structures. Walls, buildings, and other man made structures. The measurements and mapping that was being done with SLOSH, included all manmade structures existing at that time for a determination of, for instance, where storm surge from the ocean would go. Naturally, historically, storm surge damage from hurricanes overall has occurred rarely.As well, given that historically these events that have done any significant damage are so rare, decades and even centuries apart and in different parts of the coastline, it would be likely that a great deal would have changed along the coastline, particularly with manmade structures, before a storm surge or other severe weather effect occurred, thus making the measuring, mapping and sensoring based on what existed at any point in time, likely to soon be invalid and erroneous. This is certainly true for all the coasts that have been measured this way, and certainly the cities as well that have been recently measured and mapped including their buildings, walls, streets, diversions and other factors that can change in cities very rapidlyAs well, historically, there is no history of massive weather related catastrophes affecting cities at all before this increase in technological capabilities. Cities by virtue of their density, are naturally destructive of the cyclonic features of both tornadoes and hurricanes, both tending to break apart with resistance, and hurricanes dissipating over land. Historically, neither hurricanes nor tornadoes have done much damage at all to U.S. cities.
Once the measurement, mapping, information gathering, modeling and remote sensoring had being done for the whole continental United States, including coasts, offshore coasts, land, inland bodies of water, and cities; two programs that served to pull together all the new and existing technologies in order to cover the entire United States and offshore areas with advanced radar, satellite, remote sensoring and other advanced technological capabilities, wer implemented.One of these new enhanced technologies was an enhanced utilization of the Geostationary Environmental Satellite (GOES I/M)Some of the new technology and use of the new technology is outlined in the GOES I/M Product Assurance Plan (GIMPAP) for fiscal year 2005 on the “Enhanced Utilization of GOES I/M” Progress Report: October-December-2004 from the NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) from Robert M. Rabin issued January 2005.This enhanced utilization was being used with Doppler radar and other data sources, and focused on a number of areas including enhanced storm tracker capabilities, which includes greater resolution capabilities for examination of clouds and cloud layers.One of the primary utilizations of the enhanced GOES I/M was to record, track and analyze those things connected to heat, precipitation and moisture, both with clouds, and with ground based measuring of the continental United States..There is also in this new more comprehensive use of both preexisting and new capabilities, an increased, and in conjunction, monitoring of ground level heat, moisture and water levels. This includes, as noted in the document, “collaboration with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) on the use of skin temperature to detect surface wetness.” In the document it notes, “Comparisons of GOES-based heating rates have been correlated with modeled soil moisture from the NOAA Climate Prediction and with a vegetation health index for several monthly periods. Correlations are relatively high for the central and eastern U.S. and suggest the usefulness of the technique to monitor surface wetness in clear conditions.” Also for future research in analysis capabilities it included, “Discussed strategies for collaboration with NESDIS/RAMM on future research including surface air temperature.”A number of the new capabilities being discussed in this document are related specifically to precipitation and monitoring of precipitation rates. Some of these included: “Incorporation of satellite rainfall (Hydroestimator and GMSRA) into National grid to be produced at NSSL; precipitation evaluation, particularly in regions of limited radar coverage in the western U.S.; Enhanced use of satellite data in National Mosaic QPE (NMQ). Includes testing of Hydroestimator and GMSRA in complex terrain of the western U.S. (orographic conditions). – Processing has continued to input the Hydroestimator and Multi-Spectral GOES Rainfall Algorithm (GMSRA) into a national scale precipitation evaluation system at the NSSL. Implementation of the evaluation system is expected in the second quarter. In addition, composite images covering the continental United States and surrounding waters continued to be produced in real-time from GOES-12 and GOES-10 data for use in the Multi-sensor rainfall algorithm (and future comparison with the Hydro-estimator) on the new national grid. This imagery is converted to NetCDF format and archived for viewing in WDSS-II for a broad range of applications.”This newly enhanced utilization of GOES includes analysis of moisture in the air, noting in the document what the new capabilities would be used for; “Continued research on use of mesoscale wind analyzes from GOES water-vapor winds. Maintain real-time and archive data (web based)”. This capability would supply continual both real time and checking per the past, analysis of convective clouds for heat and water vapor winds for the analysis of these patterns over time and access by web for remote monitoring.In terms of these capabilities what is seen is vastly increased capabilities and coordination of sensoring and information gathering related to a number of weather phenomenon, and as well a great deal specifically related to precipitation and rainfall both in the United States and in the surrounding waters. What is notable about this as well, is the time when this was scheduled for implementation for use – the second quarter of 2005.The enhanced utilization of GOES was implemented in the second quarter of 2005. This enhanced utilization of GOES I/M was also part of an upgrading of a larger utilization of both pre-existing and new technological capabilities in what is called “Next Generation Quantitative Precipitation Estimate (QPE – 2), or (Q2).A description of the increased capabilities of Q2 is “the scientific and community wide convergence towards high resolution, accurate quantitative precipitation estimate (QPE) and very short term quantitative precipitation forecast (VSTQPF). Q2 continues the National Severe Storms Laboratory’s departure from radar-centric precipitation estimation and moves towards a multi-sensor approach focused on high resolution integration of radar, satellite, model and surface observations to produce very high resolution precipitation estimates.The purpose of the enhanced capabilities of the Q2 project, a joint initiative between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, the NOAA/National Weather Service, the NOAA/Office of Hydrological Development (OHD), the NOAA Office of Climate, Water and Weather Services (OCWSS) and the university research community, is noted as being to: “improve river forecasts, flood and flash flood watches and warnings as well as to enhance hydrologic and hydrometeorological services for numerous users and customers.”The initial version running date for the implementation of Q2 in the continental United States was January of 2005. The phase out of the older system was in December of 2006 and the implementation of both Q2 and short term QPF for the continental United States was implemented in February, 2007.On June 28 and 29 of 2005, a workshop: “Q2 – “next generation QPE”, was held in Norman, Oklahoma. The workshop sponsored by the NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL) and the NOAA/NWS and the NOAA/Hydrologic Development (OHD) noted that they had been collaborating towards improving QPE in the National Weather Service operations. It stated, “the collaboration is using the National Mosaic and Multisensor QPE (NMQ) and other projects to support research and science-to-operations of hydrometeorological applications for monitoring and prediction of water-related hazards and freshwater resources in the U.S.”The expected outcomes given for the workshop were “Generation of the science and science-to-operations plan for NMQ as the community platform for QPE and very short-range QPF, and development of collaborative QPE and very short-range QPF research and development, and research-to-operations partnerships across NOAA and with external partners.”A number of the external partners listed as both those sponsoring the workshop and those who would be attending included university connected researchers, private companies, and all of those who might be interested in Q2 research. What is also notable was the reason for the new upgrades. The purpose and focus was not on forecasting. It was instead, as noted in regard to this collaboration and these upgrades were, “for the use of QPE (NMQ) and other projects to support research and science to operations of hydrometeorological applications for monitoring and prediction of water related hazards and freshwater resources in the U.S.” The primary purpose and focus of these upgraded enhancements is for research with the rationale given that this might be applied operationally in the future for forecasting. What has been seen with these enhancements are these upgraded capabilities not being done for use by the U.S. government and forecasting as a primary purpose and the only legitimate one, but primarily and in many cases, the research being done and the information and sensoring being used solely for research purposes.
As well, a great deal of this research and the monitoring and continuing remote-sensoring of U.S. coasts, inland bodies of water and cities is not being done by the U.S. government for the U.S. government and the people of the United States.Although a great deal of this research has been funded by the U.S. government, and U.S. governmental atmospheric, oceanic and geographic agencies, such as the NOAA, the National Hurricane Center, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey, and nationally and state funded U.S. universities; the information being mapped, measured, researched and monitored, is not going to the U.S. government and for forecasting purposes primarily, but for research purposes, by U.S. and internationally connected universities and research projects, and in some cases, by private companies, a number of them foreign private companies.A large number of the ressearchers working both in US governmental and U.S. government funded and connected atmospheric agencies and in U.S. universities to which a large degree of this research has been outsourced are foreigners as well, though much of the funding is still U.S. governmental. For example, in the above document, collaboration with the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) was noted. This institute is located at Colorado State University. Although part of Colorado State University and funded by the university, the national government, atmospheric related agencies of the U.S. government and the state government of Colorado as well, this research institute is staffed with researchers who do no teaching and do not call themselves faculty but staff members. A large percentage of them are non-Americans, including through it’s formation and years following, a number of researchers and administrators. As well, the current head of CIRA, Thomas Vonder Haar, notes in terms of those applying to work on the staff at CIRA, “Senior scientists and qualified scientists from foreign countries are encouraged to apply.”One of the recent projects that CIRA is involved with is CloudSat, a NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder Mission that was launched in April, 2006. This project is the world’s most sensitive radar system, designed to measure the property of clouds. The $217 million CloudSat satellite project is predominantly funded by NASA.Although a NASA project, using NASA spacecraft, one of the mission designs was that the CloudSat spacecraft flies in orbital formation as part of a constellation of satellites, including NASA’s Aqua and Aura satellites, the French Space Agency (CNES) Parasol satellite and the NASA-CNES CALIPSO satellite. This is the first time that five research satellites have flown together in formation.Although a NASA mission and co-done with a U.S. university, it is noted by CIRA about CloudSat that “the collaborative mission draws on the expertise of industries, universities and laboratories in the United States, Canada, Japan and Europe. The CloudSat satellite will use the first-ever space-borne millimeter wavelength cloud profiling radar, developed for NASA by JPL in partnership with the Canadian Space Agency. This highly advanced radar has the ability to measure both the altitude and the physical properties of clouds. Existing space-based systems can observe only the uppermost layer of clouds and cannot reliably detect the presence of multiple cloud layers or determine the cloud water and ice content.”As well it is noted that, “The U.S. Air Force will operate the CloudSat spacecraft in orbit and will deliver the raw data to the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, or CIRA, located at Colorado State. CIRA will process all CloudSat data and deliver data products to the scientific community.” There is no reason given as to why the CloudSat data should be analyzed at CIRA and dispersed by CIRA and not by the U.S. government.It is also noted that with CloudSat “the U.S. Department of Energy will provide independent verification of the radar performance through its Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program. Scientists from the United States, Germany, France, Canada and Japan are contributing their facilities and expertise to develop science data products, analyze data and complement the DOE on-orbit verification efforts.” There isn’t any reason given as to why the scientists from these foreign countries would need to develop science data products, analyze data and complement the DOE on-orbit verification efforts.Some of the things being done with CloudSat as noted by CIRA are, “investigating how clouds determine the earth’s energy balance; measuring cloud properties from the top of the atmosphere to the surface of the earth, filling a gap in existing and planned space observation systems; penetrating into and through thick cloud systems; and linking climate conditions to hydrological processes that affect occurrences of drought, incidences of severe weather and availability of water.”NASA is involved in another recently initiated research project that also involves the measurement of precipitation rates. This is the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) which measures precipitation rates in the Americas. This research project, though being done by NASA, is being co-researched and utilized by the United States and Japan.The governments of Britain and Japan and their nationally connected atmospheric research programs are currently jointly working on a research project researching hurricanes, floods and drought in the Americas. This research project is not being done with any of the countries of the Americas, including the United States. Nor is the research and the information gathered, being shared with the countries of the Americas, including the United States.There has been a tremendous increase in the increase, severity and destruction caused by hurricanes, floods and drought in both the United States and the rest of the Americas, which matches in time both the increase in enhanced utilization and capabilities of a number of technological upgrades. This also matches the involvement in time of these countries specifically in doing research in these specific outcomes that have increased since these newly enhanced capabilities.
The mapping, measuring, modeling and remote sensoring of the United States, it’s coasts, and manmade structures on the coast, the offshore areas, land and inland bodies of water, including rivers and lakes, had all been completed by 2005.The mapping, measuring modeling and remote sensoring of a number of U.S. cities, and their manmade structures, as well as nearby coasts, lakes and rivers, had been completed by 2005, including New Orleans. A number of others have been completed since.The upgrades with enhanced Geostationary Earth Satellites that served to monitor and in much more detail, the entire U.S., coastal and offshore regions, and the enhanced Q2 capabilities were both implemented by mid 2005.Since these enhancements and their integration of radar, satellite, modeling, remote sensoring, surface observations and analysis were implemented, what has occurred after their implementation is a massive increase in the incidence of severe weather across the United States, which had been earlier mapped, measured, modeled and is being remote sensored. This has included severe weather generally and as well, specifically in terms of severe weather related to precipitation patterns across the U.S.
What occurred soon after this implementation in 2005, was Hurricane Katrina, a storm absolutely massive in scope and destruction beyond anything ever seen before. Hurricane Katrina served to flood and inundate a region from Alabama to Texas, and the damage was to a land mass as large as Great Britain. Hurricane Rita, a month later, was just as large and also inundated and flooded a massive region. What happened with Hurricane Katrina was a massive inundation of the whole region. This was after a number of earlier hurricanes in 2005; Arlene, Cindy and Dennis had already passed through the region, serving to saturate the whole area. When Hurricane Katrina hit, with one of the eyewalls hitting at the mouth of the Mississippi River, the Mississippi River was 11 feet above normal.What has occurred since the implementation of these enhanced capabilities in 2005, has been a tremendous increase in the flooding of massive regions of the United States. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, served to massively inundate a vast region along the coast and hundreds of miles inland along the Gulf Coast of the United States. At them same time and in November of 2005, in the Northeast United States, heavy storms and record rainfall resulted in flooding and inundation in a large area of the Northeast United States. In the winter of 2005 to 2006, heavy rainfall caused a tremendous degree of flooding in the Southwest Coastal region of the United States, in California. During this same period, what also occurred was record rainfall for consecutive days with rain for the Northwest coastal region of the United States and subsequent flooding.In the spring and summer of 2006, in the northeast United States and in the central Atlantic coastal regions of the United States there were record amounts of rainfall. Records were set in many areas in both the amounts of rain that fell in a one day period, and for the number of days rain fell in a row.This resulted, in the spring and summer of 2006, in the Northeast and Central eastern coastal and inland areas of the United States, was a vast inundated megaflood from Massachusetts all the way down to the Carolinas and for hundreds of miles inland.In the fall of 2006, with record short term rainfall records and record amounts of rainfall over time in the Northwest Coastal region of the U.S. what resulted was massive flooding throughout the region.Since 2005, and the implementation of the enhanced technologies and capabilities with enhanced GOES and Q2, what has occurred with the routes of storms in the continental United States has been a change to very highly organized and unnatural change in the weather patterns and routes in the United States to what appear to be “tracks or routes” with many staying unnaturally stationary for very long periods of time. A number of these enhanced capabilities implemented in 2005, are centered on precipitation specifically. What has been seen along with this very highly tracked pattern of storms across the United States since 2005, are massively abnormal precipitation patterns. In looking at satellite photos of normal weather patterns of decades ago, what was seen was variable weather, with variable precipitation patterns. This weather constantly shifted and varied from day to day. In looking at the weather patterns over time, conditions changed over the country from day to day and were always variable to one another. What has been seen since 2005 in the continental United States is very little variability in the precipitation patterns in the United States. Instead the weather patterns in the continental United States, have appeared to be very abnormal and the movement of weather and storms across the United States have shifted to what appear to be highly methodical and patterned paths, with some very fixed, long term stationary fronts. This has resulted in very high precipitation rates in some areas for months at a time, with no or little precipitation at all in nearby regions, again for months at a time. This has served to create massive destruction in many areas of the U.S., with either flooding or drought conditions existing in large areas of the country since 2005.What is notable about some of the enhanced utilization capabilities are what they measure. What has been seen since 2005, are increased capabilities for measuring and monitoring those specific factors that are related to precipitation, and movement of air masses connected to precipitation. For instance, one of the enhanced capabilities implemented in 2005, is the monitoring and information gathering of orographic forced processes, which is the process of precipitation being caused by the updraft of precipitation potential clouds moving up quickly from warmer temperatures closer to the ground, to cooler temperatures up in the atmosphere leading to rainfall.Also in the document in January 2005, on the “Enhanced Utilization of GOES I/M”, it noted, “Progress was made in developing a convective overshoot product. Images are produced which show the difference between cloud top temperature and parcel equilibrium temperature as estimated from the SPC objective analysis. The idea is to infer the amount of overshoot of the updraft (and perhaps storm intensity) from the temperature difference rather than from absolute cloud top temperatures (which vary with the time of year and location). The product was tested on a few cool season convective events. It was determined that non-convective clouds should be masked from the images to prevent false indications of overshoot. Radar and lightning data will be used for this purpose. Real-time and archived products are available.”What is notable about this “convective overshoot product”, is that it had only been tested on a few cool season convective events, as an experiment, yet based on that, it was going to be implemented to be used as a means of detecting and analyzing weather data, with no information given as to how this product was developed or why there would be an assumption that this differential would be useful in detecting storms, and forecasting precipitation. This product, which is being developed as part of the enhanced utilization of GOES for estimation of precipitation, calls for a masking of non convective clouds from the images with radar, and lightning data being used to determine which are convective clouds. In terms of forecasting, which is the only valid purpose of this enhancement, it would be important to have information on all the clouds. Specific clouds may have the potential to cause rain and storms, but this also occurs in relation to a number of other factors, including other clouds.Since the 1940’s there has been the technology and ability to seed clouds to cause precipitation. Since then, there have been thousands of research studies, modeling and simulation experiments and physical experimentation and engineering projects, connected to weather modification. There has also been research and information gathering, technological updates, remote-sensoring, modeling, simulation, experiments and engineering that is applicable to weather modification, being conducted in governments, universities and organizations around the world, in which the knowledge and capabilities have far exceeded what was known and able to be done with just cloud seeding in the 1940’s. It is significant that these changed technological advances and capabilities have not improved the forecasts appreciably, but that the weather that is able to be specifically monitored, analyzed, measured and analyzed, has changed after these particular enhanced capabilities have been implemented.
In observing the movement of fronts including storm fronts across the United States in the last few years, what is notable is the abnormality of the movement. One of the prevailing normal weather patterns over the continental United States is a pattern of weather moving from the southwest to the northeast. This has rarely been seen since 2005.In precipitation patterns in the continental United States since 2005, there has been a predominant pattern of storm fronts and precipitation remaining stationary at and near U.S. coasts, expelling large amounts of rain, while the interior of the country has received much lower amounts of precipitation and rainfall than normal. This has resulted in severe massive floods along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, the Pacific Coast of the United States and the Gulf Coast of the United States since 2005, with record high temperatures, lack of precipitation and severe drought in much of the interior United States.The predominant weather pattern seen since 2005, is precipitation being picked up from the oceans and gulf, moving inland along and near the coasts, and not moving further inland. In satellite and weather patterns, what is seen are lateral either stationary or laterally moving fronts predominantly just along the coasts, with these fronts usually not moving into the interior of the country.
What has also occurred in very large regions, and for very abnormally long duration, is a lack of precipitation, with abnormally low levels of precipitation being seen in much of the country. Due to the duration of this lack of precipitation, which is in some regions, constant and of a number of years duration, this continuous lack of precipitation has accentuated the destruction far beyond what ordinarily would exist with normal drought. With years with no or little rain, these areas have suffered conditions of drought never seen before. There have been, in the history of this country, conditions of drought that have lasted for a year of variable, but generally abnormally dry weather. The conditions are often called drought when the lack of rainfall presents itself during periods of time when crops are being planted, grown or reaped, in terms of effect. What has occurred in recent years is something far different, drought of massive proportion in terms of overall absolute lack of precipitation and for very, very long periods of time.The capabilities that have been enhanced since 2005, with increased satellite, radar and remote-sensoring capabilities are not only useful for sensoring and monitoring those conditions that are related to high levels of precipitation, but also those conditions that are related to low levels of precipitation; such as higher temperatures, drought and fires.These increased data gathering capabilities, monitoring and analysis that have been enhanced for utilization include the analysis of vegetation health, ground moisture content, the moisture content of air vapors and the lightning strikes in convective clouds. These are all monitored for the likelihood of fire conditions in governmental offices and U.S. university research facilities that research and monitor for fire. The dryness of the vegetation is monitored and rated as a fuels source to measure the burning potential given the dryness of the vegetation after months of drought, all of which is being monitored.In fact, the fires in the west in the winter of 2006, started all at once, in various locations in western states, and the causative factor as reported, was dry lightning, with it being reported that the fires started with 2,000 dry lightning strikes in Utah and neighboring states. Lightning potential of clouds is been monitored with the enhanced GOES capabilities. There have been large numbers of research studies and experiments worldwide in both lightning suppression and lightning generation. In 2006, a record amount of forest was burned in the U.S., with millions of acres being burned.As well, the general pattern of precipitation has been abnormal. For instance, there has been a great deal of rainfall in the spring and summer over much of Texas. This follows a period of severe, longstanding drought for much of Texas. The rain that has been occurring in the spring and summer of 2007 has been at record level and for quite a long duration. This follows record droughts in the same region. With the destruction of the earth due to the drought, the heavy record rainfall resulted in little of the rain being absorbed into the earth that had been damaged by the drought, increasing the destruction to the earth, the potentialities for flooding and the lack of capture of the rainfall in the levels of freshwater.What has been seen as a result of these massively abnormal rainfall patterns is tremendous destruction to the earth, and very, very low fresh water levels, which have reached a level never seen before in history. There has also been a massive increase in the monitoring and measurement of the freshwater levels in the United States and other countries that matches in time the abnormal weather patterns, the severe flood and drought conditions and the crisis levels of freshwater loss both in the U.S. and worldwide.
There has been, for many regions of the United States since 2005, heavy rainfall in one region right next to areas experiencing severe drought conditions. For instance, the Northwestern United States tends to receive a relatively moderate or higher amount of rain naturally, given where it is sited and normal rainfall patterns. Instead, what has been occurring is, in some cases, record setting rainfall along the coast, with periods of little rainfall inland. Those areas that usually receive a fair amount of precipitation are receiving little at all. The result is record longstanding drought and large forest fires.In the spring and summer of 2007, there has been heavy massive precipitation and flooding in the central part of the United States, from Minnesota down to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. With a normal precipitation pattern, weather should be passing through the western states, dropping precipitation moving toward these states. Instead, the areas to the west of the states that are receiving record rainfall, are receiving little rainfall at all. The entire inland western United States is experiencing in many areas, severe drought.While little or no rain is being seen in regions west of areas that are getting record rainfall, such as Oklahoma and Texas, the precipitation and weather patterns that would naturally and normally be continuing past the central states and bringing precipitation further east have been abnormal as well. The areas east of the regions that are receiving record rainfall, Alabama and Georgia to the east of Oklahoma and Texas are receiving little rainfall at all, and are experiencing severe, abnormal drought.In looking at radar and satellite coverage in this time period, what is notable is a very heavy concentration of precipitation in one region, with little or no precipitation in the nearby regions. It appears that all the available precipitation for a region that would normally fall variably throughout the whole region is all concentrated in terms of precipitation and for very long periods of time, with the surrounding areas receiving little at all.What has also been seen since 2005, is rainfall that is concentrated over rivers that all feed into the same watershed areas, thus serving to inundate whole massive regions and affect areas downriver.With the heavy rainfall and flooding in the central part of the U.S. in the spring and summer of 2007, what has been seen is a path of storms and rainfall right over rivers, that serve to raise the water levels and saturate the region, these storms then, again in highly patterned what appear to be paths or tracks move to the east or west, often raining over other rivers, serving to, in a very short period of time, with no let up, rain heavily and steadily, serving to inundate the whole region, resulting in flooding.One of the increased capabilities that was implemented in 2005 was remote sensoring of both rivers and lakes in the continental United States as well as ground moisture levels. What has increased since this remote sensoring of rivers and lakes were implemented in 2005, has been massive flooding and inundation related to extremely high water levels in rivers and lakes, and nearby ground saturation, that with additional rainfall led to flooding. This was true with Hurricane Katrina, with the very high water levels of the Mississippi, Pearl, Biloxi and Atchafalaya Rivers, and Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne. With the implementation of the ability to remote sensor monitor the water levels in these bodies of water in 2005, and the moisture content of the ground, what resulted was the capability to tell when and where the capacity for flooding had been reached. What has resulted from these increased capabilities has been not specifically an increased ability to forecast flooding, but an immediate increase in flooding due to heavy precipitation patterns over rivers, and coasts, all after the capacity to measure these waterways had been implemented.Like the hurricanes that have hit in the same region again and again in a short period of time, which serves to massively exponentially increase damage, with no or little time in between, these abnormal levels of precipitation, either abnormally high or low and in many cases alternating with each other, with little normal precipitation occurring at all, has massively accelerated destruction.Heavy rainfall occurring in concentrated regions for long periods of time has served to greatly exponentially increase the damage. If there is rain in an area, that lets up, the water level in the rivers, lakes, and waterways soon drop, and the ground loses moisture content within a few days. With these massive stationary, feeding into the same “watershed system” rainfall patterns, with no let up, what are set up are completely abnormal conditions for massive flooding, due to, in some cases, months of steady, uninterrupted rainfall concentrated on specific coasts, regions, and river and watershed systems to create megaflood conditions.As well, these flooding events are very like the hurricanes that have been seen in the last number of years in the abnormality of their massive scale of size.Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, in many ways, shared characteristics of the other massive flooding events in the United States since 2005 that were not as a result of hurricanes.The flooding that occurred in the Atlantic Coastal states in 2006 resulted from a number of storms in a row, and months of rainfall, some of it record amounts, in the region. In fact, this was similar to what had occurred on the Gulf Coast before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.Hurricane Katrina for example, and it’s wind speeds, did little damage to New Orleans. The damage was done by a massive “inundation event”, which was the result not just of what could be called “Hurricane Katrina” a single hurricane that hit New Orleans, but the superstorm called Hurricane Katrina, that had three separate eyewalls hitting the Mississippi River, the Pearl River and the Biloxi River, hundreds of miles apart, and backflowing them against the very high levels of water moving downriver to the ocean from both the region being inundated with earlier storms and hurricanes that had also tracked north and dumped a great deal of precipitation before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. What occurred with the Hurricane Katrina event might best be described as a massive “water inundation bomb event” with the massive levels of water flowing downriver from earlier heavy rainfall flowing down very high level waterways into the Gulf of Mexico, being hit by the “superhurricane Katrina with multiple eyewalls”, that hit specifically at the terminuses of the mouths of the three rivers with enough force to backflow them for miles. With the force of the water moving upriver hitting against the force of the very high water levels flowing down the rivers due to earlier storms and hurricanes, the result was a massive inundation event as the water flowed out of existing waterways which resulted in a massive destruction of rivers, wetlands, lakes and the surrounding land in the region as an absolutely massive region was inundated by this event.Although the destruction with Hurricane Katrina was described as being the result of just Hurricane Katrina, in fact, what created a large amount of the destruction; the massive flooding, was the result of not just one storm or hurricane, but a number of storms and hurricanes in a row that served to already inundate the Gulf Coast region before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast.In that sense, what appears to be this highly tracked methodical path of storms which has been occurring with both storms and hurricanes, has served to keep stationary; storms that expel a lot of rain that both affect certain regions and moving downriver, affect downriver watershed areas, with rain then often occurring in these areas downriver at the same time or subsequently. The result is a massive volume of water flowing through certain areas all at the same time. With regions that had received almost continuous rainfall for long periods of time, also receiving a large volume of water moving through the waterways from upriver rain, and an event of massive rainfall in a short period of time from storms or hurricanes, the result has been to flood and in these cases, massively inundate regions that had already received large amounts of almost continuous rainfall for long periods of time before.This was the case with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And it has been the case with a number of massive flooding events since.
In the spring and summer of 2007, what has been seen is quite heavy and almost continuous rain within the central United States Mississippi River and tributary rivers watershed down to the Gulf of Mexico. What has also been seen is fairly continuous intermittent rain on the Gulf of Mexico Coast, serving to keep the whole region saturated, and leading to massive flooding in a number of places.Throughout the spring and summer, precipitation and rainfall has been clustered in this region, raining first in one area, and often over one river system, sometimes for long periods of time, then moving to another nearby river system and again, often remaining there for long periods of time, raining for long periods. What has been seen resulting from this is heavy incidences of flooding throughout the Midwest in the spring and summer of 2007. This has included Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas. These are regions that feed into the tributaries of the Mississippi River and with rain falling heavily in the northern, central and the southern states, keeping the entire “north-south” watershed saturated, the result is that the entire massive watershed region has been fully saturated, so that heavy rainfall in one region, within a short period of time, within that watershed, will lead to flooding. As well, what has been seen is heavy flooding capacity rainfall after saturation levels have been reached in the northern states within this watershed, then the heavy rainfall pattern shifting south of there, so that the region south of the area that had just received a tremendous and flooding amount of rainfall to the north, is receiving not only the rainfall that is falling heavily and quickly in that already saturated area to the south, but also dealing with a huge volume of water flowing downriver through that region from the floods north of there, leading to massive flooding events. This is what has occurred with the record flooding in Oklahoma and Texas in the summer of 2007. This was the result not only of record short term rainfall that fell in Texas and Oklahoma, but a fully saturated ground and high water levels and water rushing downriver in those regions from heavy rainfall that had occurred north of there, and from multiple river systems feeding into it. This led to massive flooding, and as a result of what appears to be highly organized rainfall patterns. While the central regions were receiving massive rainfall, surrounding regions have received little or none, it appearing as if all the available precipitation was being centered in these regions, with the rainfall expelled there.What has also been seen in the summer of 2007, with this heavy rainfall and high river and ground levels of saturation, in the central Mississippi watershed, with rain both in specific areas and in watershed regions north of there, is heavy rainfall also coming up from the Gulf of Mexico to again inundate the same region, while heavy rainfall is also falling north of there to also bring heavy rainfall, so that the rainfall is coming from two different directions, to again inundate and cause flooding in the region.This is a pattern that has been seen in the flooding off the coasts of the United States, with rainfall moving along the rivers, to create high water levels and with heavy massive rainfall off the ocean onto land, leading to massive flooding along the coasts and inland. This happened in the Southwest in the winter of 2005-2006, it happened in the Northeast and Northcentral regions in the spring and summer of 2006. and it happened in the fall of 2006 in the Northwest. It is also what happened with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.What was seen before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast, were earlier hurricanes that both served to keep the Gulf Coast regions saturated and at very high water levels. These hurricanes then moved far north in very patterned ways along the Mississippi watershed river system, bringing a great deal of rain in the Mississippi River watershed, and with this heavy rainfall from previous hurricanes flowing downriver through the Mississippi and tributaries, it served to keep the Mississippi and other downriver rivers on the Gulf of Mexico at very high water levels so that when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit, it resulted in tremendous flooding.Heavy flooding has been seen with Tropical Storm Erin and Hurricane Dean, two storms in August 2007. These two storms, as has been the case for numerous hurricanes and tropical storms in the last four years, have centered in and around the Gulf of Mexico.Although Dean formed as a Tropical Storm first and in the Atlantic Ocean before Tropical Storm Erin, Erin formed as a tropical depression on the night of August 14, 2007 in the Central Gulf of Mexico. It strengthened from a tropical depression to a tropical storm, before making landfall early August 16 just north of Corpus Christi, Texas adding even more heavy rain to the region. Corpus Christi had already received over 18 inches of rain in July, a record for the month.Instead of weakening over land as tropical storms and hurricanes naturally do, as was reported in an AP news report, “the remnants of Tropical Storm Erin spawned flooding in Texas and Oklahoma. Instead of weakening as it moved inland, the storm produced winds of more than 80 miles per hour and heavy rain.”Tropical Storm Erin brought heavy rainfall further inland across Texas and Oklahoma. It is noted on a NASA website which measures precipitation levels, “the highest rainfall totals for the period are around six to eight inches over the central Texas Gulf Coast”. Rainfall continued on a northwest path, bringing more rain to already inundated regions in Central Texas and to Oklahoma, a region that has in the summer of 2007, already experienced record rainfall and flooding.Tropical Storm Erin served to reinundate regions that had already experienced record rainfall and flooding with record levels of rainfall in the spring and summer of 2007. It also brought heavy rainfall levels to the Central Gulf Coast of Texas, before moving north. It also brought heavy rainfall to Minnesota and Wisconsin.Some of the heavy rain that has been falling in the central United States, including in Oklahoma and Texas continued moving downriver through river systems which also affect Mexico to the south. Mexico was heavily affected by massive flooding from Hurricane Dean.Hurricane Dean formed in the Atlantic and was upgraded to a hurricane on August 16, 2007. On August 18th, a double eyewall was noted as Hurricane Dean, a category four hurricane, moved toward land and the island of Jamaica. Hurricane Dean resulted in a number of deaths in Jamaica and then in Haiti, and resulted in an estimate 1.4 billion dollars in damage in Jamaica alone.Hurricane Dean strengthened to a Category five hurricane in the waters off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula and slammed into Mexico’s Caribbean coast on August 21st, landing around the cruise ship port of Costa Maya, near the border with Belize. It passed through the Yucatan Peninsula, with heavy rainfall in the interior and moved into the Gulf of Mexico. On the Yucatan Peninsula, a number of cities and villages, both in the interior and on the coasts experienced damage. Coastal villages and cities damaged by Hurricane Dean on the Yucatan Peninsula included Mahahual and Ciudad del Carmen.In looking at the track of Hurricane Dean across the Yucatan, the track and damage “dovetailed with the part of the Yucatan that had been damaged with Hurricane Wilma in 2005. For instance, the coastal regions on the northern tip of the Yucatan Peninsula, including the cities of Cozumel, Cancun and Playa del Carmen suffered massive damage with Hurricane Wilma. With Hurricane Dean, what was damaged was a region on the Yucatan Peninsula just south of the damage and path of Hurricane Wilma in 2005, thus serving to “dovetail with” and continue on further south, the earlier damage on the Yucatan Peninsula with Hurricane Wilma.After crossing the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Dean made a second landfall near Tecolutla, Veracruz in Mexico on August 22 as a Category 2 hurricane, doing a great deal of damage in Veracruz.As had been the case with Tropical Storm Erin, although Hurricane Dean weakened over land, it brought massive amounts of rain, which did a tremendous amount of damage.In an AFP news report on August 23rd, it reported that the remnants of Hurricane Dean triggered mudslides in Mexico as the driving rain drenched a large part of the country, bringing the storm’s death toll to at least 25. And with river levels swelling rapidly and pounding rain hitting unstable mountain flanks, officials warned the crisis was far from over, even though Hurricane Dean was downgraded to a tropical depression. Several rivers burst their banks in the central Mexican state of Hidalgo, cutting off electricity and damaging farmland. More than 10,000 people in the state were evacuated to higher ground as river levels continued to rise.”An official in Mexico told Televisa television, “we remain concerned because Dean is covering much of the Republic of Mexico.” The flooding affected large parts of Mexico, with the states of Veracruz, Pueblo and Hidalgo being the most directly affected.These hurricanes are very like the hurricanes seen in the last decade and particularly in the last few years, with a massive increase in flooding related to hurricanes. Indeed most of the damage being seen with hurricanes in the last few years is related to flooding, which is not naturally, historically, what causes the most damage with hurricanes, which is wind damage.As well, what is seen with Tropical Storm Erin and with Hurricane Dean is a massive amount of rainfall falling in one region and within a very short period of time. With Tropical Storm Erin, this followed record amounts of rainfall in regions that had just been inundated with record rainfall and flooding from non-hurricane storms that all served to inundate the same region within a very short time period.In fact, severe weather and steady, heavy rainfall has continued with new storm systems in the same regions that were affected by Hurricanes Dean and Erin, although both hurricanes had passed.Not long after Hurricane Dean passed through Mexico, on August 27, 2007, the forecast for the next three days in the same region affected by Hurricane Dean in Mexico was, “showers, thunderstorms and flooding rain along the central Mexican coast. It noted, “The heavy rain from this feature will hammer some of the same areas of Mexico affected by Dean for the next 36 to 48 hours. Some of this feature’s moisture will also reach parts of deep South Texas.”What is notable about this weather front is that it is hitting exactly the same place hit by massive rainfall just earlier with Hurricane Dean. It also is affecting all the way north to deep South Texas an area affected by both Tropical Storm Erin and Hurricane Dean and large numbers of other storms to create massive flooding earlier.On August 29, 2007, there were heavy storms in Belize and in the Mexican state of Quintana Roo, just north of Belize that were devastated by Hurricane Dean.On August 29, 2007, there were storms and rainfall on the U.S. Gulf Coast, from Baton Rouge and New Orleans all the way across the northwest Gulf Coast region, including north of the Gulf Coast, in Houston and nearby Lake Charles, and further south, on the Gulf Coast of Texas, all the way down to Corpus Christi and south into Mexico. Thus, in the U.S. the entire northwest Gulf of Mexico region is receiving heavy continuous rainfall, after it had already received heavy rainfall from earlier storms, and flooding from high river levels coming down from the northern parts of Texas and Oklahoma and further north. This is like earlier similar patterns of heavy, continuous rainfall from various types of storms, all impacting a region in a very short period of time, rain coming from both inland and other storms, such as hurricanes from the ocean and all serving to massively saturate a region.Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast when the levels of water at the Gulf Coast were already very high and the entire region saturated from earlier storms and hurricanes.
What is also disturbing is the building of a special meteorological buoy at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami and it’s deployment in August 2007.U.S. governmental funds were spent on enhanced capability equipment and technology for research in this new meteorological buoy. This buoy project, which was supported by almost $1,000,000 of funding from the National Science Foundation’s Ocean Technology and Interdisciplinary Coordination program was developed and is being used by researchers at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami. These researchers, many of whom are not Americans, designed a buoy with both a rugged hull and instrumentation design for meteorological measurements in high wind and wave environments. It incorporates the latest sensors, some with special modifications to survive the extreme conditions.The buoy, which has been under design for several years, is being used this year, 2007, by researchers from the Rosenstiel School. The buoy, which was deployed off of Jacksonville, Florida in early August, 2007, will be deployed for several months.In noting the purpose of the buoy, Dr Neil Williams, Rosenstiel School scientist and project co-investigator said, “While the current mission for this platform is hurricane research, we have plans in place to use it for research in a variety of high sea state conditions around the world.”It was noted that one of the reasons for the specific rugged hull design and instrumentation of the buoy was because there were relatively few examples of data recovered from extreme wind conditions. In fact, with both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Wilma, the severity of the storms resulted in destruction to buoys and meteorological sensors, serving to limit the information available both for forecasting of these storms themselves and later efforts to reconstruct what had occurred in the storms.During Hurricane Wilma in the Gulf of Mexico, which severely affected the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, it was reported during the storm that due to the severity of the waves, several reporting buoys were unable to send retrievable information for use in forecasting and information about the storm. With Hurricane Katrina, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sought to reconstruct what had occurred after the hurricane, all the remote sensors that transmitted information had been destroyed on the coast itself and on the rivers. The only remote sensors still intact were a few in Lake Pontchartrain, as reported by a researcher working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thus in Hurricane Katrina as well, critical information needed to inform people of the severity of the hurricane and to reconstruct events after, was lost.This buoy, as noted, is to be used for research. The cost was tremendously high, almost a million dollars, and the question is why U.S. taxpayer money is being spent on research projects that allow gathering of information, in severe conditions, but are not being used to forecast these conditions to the National Hurricane Center or the National Weather Service or the American people. As well, as noted, this buoy is outfitted specifically for very severe conditions for information gathering and a question is why would there be an assumption in early August 2007 that in the next months there would be these very severe conditions that would require the use of this meteorological buoy in the Gulf of Mexico or on the Gulf or Atlantic coasts of the United States?
PART TWO
There has been concern in the past that given the continuing weather modification practices, including cloud seeding, and the massive amount of research specifically applicable to weather modification that has been done since, including active weather modification experimentation, by a number of governments around the world, that weather modification and the information gathering, experimentation, research, modeling and remote – sensoring is being used to directly modify the weather.Even by the 1970s, it was understood by the scientific communities around the world that there was, even at that point, enough information and enough researched use of weather modification and it’s effectiveness that it would be possible that weather could be used as a means of aggression by some governments against other countries. On December 10, 1976, the U.N. General Assembly adopted resolution 31/72, and in October, 5, 1978, it was entered into force, called the “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques” This was after the U.S. Congress held hearings in 1972 and the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution in 1973 calling for an international agreement “prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war. As a result of this resolution, the President ordered the Department of Defense to undertake an in-depth review of the military aspects of weather and other environmental modification techniques. The result of this study and a subsequent interagency study led to the U.S. government’s decision to seek agreement with the Soviet Union to explore the possibilities of an international agreement. In August 1975, after a number of meetings and negotiations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the chief representatives of the U.S. and Soviet Union delegations to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD) tabled, in parallel, identical draft texts of a “Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques”The Convention defines environmental modification techniques as changing — through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes — the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydro-sphere, and atmosphere, or of outer space. Changes in weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmental modification techniques.”In fact, what has been occurring for the last number of decades, in the U.S. and in much of the rest of the world, and particularly to a massively increased degree in the last number of years, is exactly that, which is noted as the result of environmental modification techniques; “Changes in weather or climate patterns, in ocean currents, or in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, or an upset in the ecological balance of a region are some of the effects which might result from the use of environmental modification techniques.” Article I sets forth the basic commitment: “Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.” “Widespread” is defined as “encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers”; “long-lasting” is defined as “lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season”; and “severe” is defined as “involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural and economic resources or other assets.” One of the notable features of this passage is what is defined as “widespread” in the degree of environmental impact. “Widespread” is defined as “encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers.” In fact, naturally any weather related phenomena in terms of scale of damage would be considered massively large and widespread if it did impact an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers, as was noted in this 1977 document. The area damaged in Hurricane Katrina was 90,000 square miles, the size of the land mass of Britain. There was, with this resolution, an acknowledgement that weather modification was being done, which has certainly continued with cloud seeding and other techniques. This resolution, not only served to acknowledge that use, but to limit the use and purpose and work to ensure that any of these weather modification techniques would not be used for purposes of aggression against other countries.Article III of the resolution, included a passage about the sharing of research among countries, including that specific to weather modification research, experimentation and use in and of itself, and that research, data gathering, modeling, sensoring, simulation and experimentation that could be applicable to weather modification and of which there has been a tremendous amount since 1977.Article III, section 2 of the resolution says, “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement, and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.” There was clearly already an understanding that weather modification could affect change in the weather and this resolution served to underscore that understanding and sought to limit any use or connected to use to ensure that it was not used for aggression. It also served to work to ensure with this resolution, and understanding among a large number of nations that any shared information and cooperative ventures would not be used for purposes of aggression. And it also paved the way for much further increased international sharing and cooperation of research, data gathering, satellite and radar and remote sensoring information, and as noted with that as the purpose.What has been seen is with the increase of these capabilities and with the involvement of a number of countries in this research being done cooperatively, is, to all apparent with the increase of these capabilities, not greatly improved forecasting, but a massive increase in severely abnormal weather, beyond anything ever seen naturally and historically; worldwide, in scope, occurrence, and severity.The countries listed as working with the United States in NASA sponsored research are Japan, Germany, Britain, France and Canada. The governments of Japan and Germany are working on more than one project with the United States in environmental research and are heavily involved in environmental research in their own countries and other countries. In the case of Japan, their “Earth Simulator” is the largest supercomputer in the world which has as it’s sole function supercomputing of weather and environmental variables. Although the weather forecasting worldwide has not improved appreciably with these types of capabilities, which is the reason given for the Earth Simulator, the earth simulator itself does have the capacity necessary for weather modification. Weather modification, unlike weather forecasting, requires massive computational capabilities running numerous weather and environmental models which are applicable to weather modification but are useless for weather forecasting. In fact, as environmental and weather computer simulation modelers have long known, and described as the “Butterfly Effect” by Charney, one of the early environmental and weather modelers, the kind of weather and environmental computing being done by Japan’s Earth Simulator, is in and of itself, useless for weather forecasting as the variables of prospective natural weather are naturally inexact and the exponential amplitude of these natural variables, make weather forecasting using these modeling methods fully inexact and useless for weather forecasting. However, this weather and environmental modeling and these massive computational capabilities are essential for weather modification.Japan and Germany have also notably as nations benefitted economically from the uses that are being made of the so called “global warming” and problems with carbon dioxide that are being ascribed as the “cause” of global warming and abnormal and severe weather. In reality, carbon dioxide levels in most countries have decreased, not increased. That is certainly true of the US where with air pollution controls instituted in the 1970’s, the carbon dioxide levels are far lower than they were in the 1950’s and 1960’s when cities like Pittsburgh were so polluted it was sometimes difficult to see through the smog. Although there has always been a “heat island” effect, with temperatures being relatively warmer in populated areas where there is higher energy expenditure, it is directly relatable to that and has no effect on the weather at all, either in terms of temperatures rising “generally” because of carbon dioxide or other pollutants or weather becoming more severe due to this cause.However, carbon dioxide levels like the earlier abnormal weather severity have been ascribed to two different causes at two times that served to benefit Japan and Germany financially and detriment other countries. In the late 1980’s, the severe and abnormal weather, instead of being ascribed to high CO2 levels was ascribed as being caused by a “hole in the ozone layer”. With the use of this described cause, with no evidence to back it up as is the case now with ascribing the cause as being “high CO2 levels”, the claim that global warming was caused by a hole in the ozone layer caused by chemical CFC’s resulted in the banning of products contained CFC’s. Most of these products were made by US chemical companies, just as Japan and Germany were jointly targeting chemical companies both in the US and worldwide.At the present time, Japan and Germany are both haranguing and pressuring other countries worldwide to “cut CO2 emissions in their countries” due to “global warming” and presenting themselves and their products as “earth friendly”. However, in their actual actions connected to various treaties and pacts being used politically, such as the Kyoto Pact, it is quite clear these two countries are not “environmentally friendly” and not interested in cutting emissions in their countries and with their products, but are interested in doing it in other countries to work to attack and destroy other country’s economies, which they are presently doing worldwide generallyThe cap and trade system and the emission cuts being prescribed using international venues and pacts such as the Kyoto Pact, are being used by Japan and Germany to force other countries to massively cut industrial production in their countries, while Japan and Germany are using the same “cap and trade system” to, instead, of cutting emissions of their own products or cutting industrial production in their own countries, instead are “trading” with other countries to be allowed to not cut industrial and energy production in their countries which would hurt their economies, but instead be “credited” if they sell and produce energy in other countries using “cleaner technology” such as gas, instead of coal. In this way, Japan and Germany worldwide are taking over national energy production in other countries, displacing domestic producers and gaining control of energy supplying worldwide and destroying national control of domestic energy production. They are also working to destroy other country’s domestic industrial production “overall” and in specific industries, such as autos and air transport, while also targeting those economic sectors.In the case of automobiles, while Japan and Germany have jointly been targeting the US auto industry and the auto industry worldwide, they have been making vehicles that are certainly no more energy efficient or less polluting, they are using this to attack and destroy other country’s auto industries, including the US. They have pressured and coerced the US to force US automakers, who tended to make larger vehicles, since the Japanese and Germans had already taken over the US small car market, to destroy their production of larger vehicles, using the fake rationale of ‘cutting emissions” to pressure US companies aided by the US government being pressured by Japan and Germany internationally to massively cut their production of larger vehicles. This has served to destroy production of US vehicles overall, since this is what US automakers had a larger share of auto production in. At the same time, Japan and Germany have massively increased their production of larger vehicles being built and imported into the US, that are no more fuel efficient than US ones, to target the US auto companies and industry to destroy it, so they could gain monopoly control. While Japan now has eight auto companies, centered in Japan, and Germany five, centered in Germany, the US which had three auto companies, has two in bankruptcy and the other severely struggling economically. At the same time Japan increased it’s imports of Japanese vehicles from approximately 1.5 million a year in 1996 to 2.5 million a year in the last couple of years, while only allowing 14,000 US vehicles into Japan, serving to massively displace and assault US automakers while also working to force production cuts using the issue of auto emissions.The auto industry is a specific industry, however, in other transport industries such as airlines, the same pressure is being exerted by these two nations and as well these forced cuts are cutting “industrial production “overall” to attack other country’s economies generally.
https://sites.google.com/site/abnormalweatherweatherwar/Another text of this
