August 16, 2012

Freak Storms are the new Norm


Picture
July 2012 - "Super Derecho"



A brief search on the Internet reveals that freak storms are on the rise globally. And a July 2, 2012 report outlined how "A freak storm took the East by surprise, leaving a 600-mile path of destruction across seven states. It killed more than a dozen people and left millions without power." The report by CBS was entitled, "Freak storm leaves extensive damage in the East." A weather expert in the news-clip stated this was the largest East Coast non-hurricaine-type storm in a hundred years. And a witness in Virginia documented "fire in the sky," as noted 45 seconds into the video clip. Could this have been a HAARP creation? Weather modifying technology that was once secret is being increasingly being acknowledged in the public sphere, as noted in the United Arab Emirates. The proverbial rain makers are back in business.

The July storm was labelled as a type of storm called a "derecho" which hasn't been a very commonly used term on the East coast until recently.  Derechos have been somewhat common to the midwest but have been making their way to the East coast about once every four years in the recent past. The June derecho was especially strong, a "Super Derecho" that packed winds of up to 100 miles per hour and left a path of quick and sudden devastation. One of the main problems with a derecho is that there's no time to prepare. The word is from spanish, meaning "straight ahead." With a hurricane at least there is some forewarning. The map image from The Weather Channel shows the derecho formation does not have an "eye" like a hurricane or tornado but is a concentrated, power-packed force in one direction.

Picture
August 2011 - Hurricane Irene
Last year, in 2011, hurricane Irene left a long path of destruction from the Caribbean to Kennebunkport Maine. It travelled through a narrow stretch of Long Island but caused more damage as it hit land again in Connecticut. There is speculation as to why hurricanes are increasing, but it is commonly believed by weather experts that they are in fact increasing. "The warming oceans are very likely causing the strength of hurricanes to increase. According to MIT scientist Kerry Emmanuel, hurricanes have become 70-80% more powerful over this time."

Things are quite unpredictable today. One year after extreme rains and flooding brought the level of the Mississippi up to historical levels, the present drought has made the river's water so low that barges must carry lighter loads in order to avoid running aground in the shallow water. In May 2011, Newsweek Magazine offered that climate change was responsible for the increase of freak storms and that we need to be prepared for increasingly worse scenarios. The article is entitled, "Are You Ready for More? In a world of climate change, freak storms are the new normal. Why we’re unprepared for the harrowing future."

The increase of strange weather and freak storms have caused many home owners who own second homes to look to house watchers for help. Southampton Home Inspections (SHI) offers 24/7 emergency availability and communication for its clients in case of such calamities. Help with preparation, organizing clean-up, checking electricity and appliances, etc can be critical. House watchers often perform emergency management assistance with boats, in addition to houses.

Tags: Freak storms on the rise, Hamptons house watching, SHI, what is the name of new kind of storm? Are hurricanes on the increase? Emergency storm management, name of June 2012 derecho? Super Derecho, HAARP Arabia-Emirates weather modification creating rain

Article source: Southampton Home Inspections Blog

9 comments:

  1. Scientists who have been keeping track climate change have been warning about this for years, but the religious/political right have been and in some cases, continue to deny that climate change is happening and that humans have played a part in it.

    I really hope that you're not serious about that HAARP bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't feel bad that you are a little behind in the learning curve. That doesn't necessarily mean that you are a bit blind and close minded in other areas as well.

    "Abu Dhabi scientists now claim to have created more than 50 artificial rainstorms from clear skies during peak summer months in 2010.

    According to Arabian Business, the storms were part of a top secret, Swiss-backed project, commissioned by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, president of the UAE and leader of Abu Dhabi. Called "Weathertec," the climate project -- said to be worth a staggering $11 million -- utilized ionizers resembling giant lampshades to generate fields of negatively charged particles, which create cloud formation, throughout the country's Al Ain region, the Telegraph is reporting."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/03/abu-dhabi-rainstorm_n_803554.htm

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/cbc-broadcast-on-haarp-weather-control/question-2507279/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, Rick. Why go for the logically and scientifically strongly supported explanation, when there's a fringe explanation that involves a government conspiracy you can blame?

      Really, you need new blades for your Occam's Razor.

      This is exactly what climate change scientists have been predicting for *years*, Rick. How do you feel about climate change science?

      Delete
    2. Rick, do you really believe that those tiny little effing storms they made are at all comparable to worldwide climate change?

      Do you even know the difference between "climate" and "weather"? Here's a hint: Climate is long term, not "a little small space in the ionosphere" as from the CBC video.

      That stuff in the CBC link (the other one doesn't work) doesn't deal with climate change at all.

      Delete
    3. Well, when something that relies on a few athlete's say-so and has no empirical backing can be a "key factor", you know that Rick's sense of scale is a bit off. ;)

      Delete
    4. Forgot to say that I've known of this and other localized methods of altering the weather temporarily but they don't really do much for global climate changes.

      Rick, maybe it's you who needs to do a little bit of reading of some actual science journals instead of this bullshit you're passing on here.

      Delete
    5. Oh -- just so you know, Rick, editing without giving any indication you have is, while not ethically wrong, more than a tad shady. It's one of the reasons that I occasionally take screenshots of your posts& comment threads, because I don't trust you not to change them to try and change your position/the terms of the argument later.

      Delete
    6. >Ah, Rick. Why go for the logically and scientifically strongly supported explanation, when there's a fringe explanation that involves a government conspiracy you can blame?

      -Both you and Reynold are making a false assumption. My article outlines that many weather experts believe global warming is a significant factor in producing extreme weather conditions:

      :There is speculation as to why hurricanes are increasing, but it is commonly believed by weather experts that they are in fact increasing. "The warming oceans are very likely causing the strength of hurricanes to increase. According to MIT scientist Kerry Emmanuel, hurricanes have become 70-80% more powerful over this time."

      Because I offered HAARP as another variable in the equation, you both seem to think that I must be against the theory that global warming is occurring. I suppose it's a critical thinking issue. You guys really need to work on that.

      Now, when I don't respond to all the comments that follow berating me because I supposedly don't believe climate change exists, you will erroneously claim that I ignore cogent comments.

      It is clear that the polar caps are melting, but, according to the latest estimates, "about 30 percent less ice is melting than previously thought."

      http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-less-than-thought

      Are humans a factor in global warming? Yes. Are we the main factor? That question is still open for debate.

      Is the enactment of a global world government going to solve the problem? No. The main reason the earth is harmed is because of human greed and corruption. Will extra bureaucracy change the human heart and the human condition? No, actually, excess bureaucracy tends to allow for even more corruption.

      And, by the way, I added the HAARP facts because I realized that people like Reynold don't have a clue that it is a real and publicized technology. The additional info was posted on the same day and did not change the meaning of the text. When I change the text beyond the first day an article is published I make a note that the text was revised on that date.

      Delete
    7. When you ask about one specific technology, and make an off-hand mention of warming oceans in one paragraph, which one do you think comes across as more important to you?

      (Also, do notice that I asked how you felt about climate change science -- I gave you the opportunity, which you have now taken, to expand on the views of your article.)

      you will erroneously claim that I ignore cogent comments.

      You're ignoring enough cogent comments elsewhere, including using made-up citations to your own arguments, that I don't need to use anything here for that. ;)

      Is the enactment of a global world government going to solve the problem? No. The main reason the earth is harmed is because of human greed and corruption. Will extra bureaucracy change the human heart and the human condition?

      I hope you realize this is you wandering off into random speculation, since no one else on this thread was talking about this stuff. I also note that you state things in an inarguable form:

      No, actually, excess bureaucracy tends to allow for even more corruption.

      Well, sure -- but I bet we differ vastly on what counts as "excess" bureaucracy. ;)

      When I change the text beyond the first day an article is published I make a note that the text was revised on that date.

      I am not sure I believe this, based on past experience, but I'm glad to know you think that way. I recommend doing it every time you edit, but I may just have higher standards for clarity and openness.

      Delete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!