Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: tkadm30 on 28/08/2017 22:02:50

Title: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 28/08/2017 22:02:50
The possibility that geoengineering caused Hurricane Harvey must not be underestimated.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 29/08/2017 00:22:44
Is the hypothesis of climate change what you are referring to as geoengineering?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 29/08/2017 00:30:56
Is the hypothesis of climate change what you are referring to as geoengineering?

"Climate change" is a political fraud fabricated to justify the weaponization of weather modification technology known as geoengineering.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 29/08/2017 00:59:31
So what are you trying to say?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: jeffreyH on 29/08/2017 10:19:50
I think the poster is trying to say that ignorance is the mother of invention.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 29/08/2017 10:47:25
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: alancalverd on 29/08/2017 12:33:54
The damage done by modern hurricanes is the result of civil engineering - or lack of same.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2017 21:23:10
So what are you trying to say?
You have to make allowances for tkadm30's inability to understand evidence.
He believes essentially anything he sees on crackpot websites.
Check his other threads on the subject.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 29/08/2017 22:15:13
You have to make allowances for tkadm30's inability to understand evidence.
He believes essentially anything he sees on crackpot websites.
Check his other threads on the subject.

Thanks for not even attempting to answer my initial question. Your systematic denial of independent research is probably the reason you miss the point. Please stop the emotional ranting and confront me with reasonable arguments. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe in your nonsense.
 
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2017 01:45:12
No, because there is no reason to believe that geoengineering had anything to do with Hurricane Harvey. No verifiable evidence has been presented by the OP.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 30/08/2017 07:24:41
"Bizarre Radar Anomaly Over Corpus Christi Texas 2 Days Before Harvey Landfall Indicates Mass Weather Modification Took Place."

Quote
Friday, Aug 25th, 2017:  Looking at the SSEC Watervapor map on a 28 hour loop, we see that hurricane Harvey was being targeted with microwave RF sufficient to temporarily destroy the eyewall’s organization at two separate times in this loop as the storm advanced in a Northeast path toward Texas. In the previous two videos we show the distinct markings of the microwave transmitter targeting Harvey, superheating various areas near its center which generate pressure waves and ‘blast’ patterns while disrupting the convective process in the storm.

https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2017/08/26/weather-terrorists-engineer-hurricane-harvey-for-maximum-destruction/amp/

http://allnewspipeline.com/Hurricane_Harvey_Weather_Modification_Evidence.php

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/harvey-steered-texas-coast-microwave-burst-haarp/206437

https://geopolitics.co/2014/02/04/u-s-attacked-philippines-using-haarp/
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: alancalverd on 30/08/2017 10:03:54
Anything injected into the upper atmosphere by any means, will be about 5000 miles to the east in 24 hours.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 30/08/2017 10:07:25
Anything injected into the upper atmosphere by any means, will be about 5000 miles to the east in 24 hours.

We are talking about satellite-controlled microwave radiation here.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2017 17:54:18
You have to make allowances for tkadm30's inability to understand evidence.
He believes essentially anything he sees on crackpot websites.
Check his other threads on the subject.

Thanks for not even attempting to answer my initial question. Your systematic denial of independent research is probably the reason you miss the point. Please stop the emotional ranting and confront me with reasonable arguments. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe in your nonsense.
 
It was pretty clear that I was seeking to answer someone else's question, rather than yours.
Theirs had the advantage of making sense.

Once again, you haven't presented any evidence of geoengineering on any meaningful scale, never mind evidence that it is responsible for any particular event.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2017 17:54:56
Anything injected into the upper atmosphere by any means, will be about 5000 miles to the east in 24 hours.

We are talking about satellite-controlled microwave radiation here.

Royal we?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2017 22:50:50
"Bizarre Radar Anomaly Over Corpus Christi Texas 2 Days Before Harvey Landfall Indicates Mass Weather Modification Took Place."

Quote
Friday, Aug 25th, 2017:  Looking at the SSEC Watervapor map on a 28 hour loop, we see that hurricane Harvey was being targeted with microwave RF sufficient to temporarily destroy the eyewall’s organization at two separate times in this loop as the storm advanced in a Northeast path toward Texas. In the previous two videos we show the distinct markings of the microwave transmitter targeting Harvey, superheating various areas near its center which generate pressure waves and ‘blast’ patterns while disrupting the convective process in the storm.

https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2017/08/26/weather-terrorists-engineer-hurricane-harvey-for-maximum-destruction/amp/

http://allnewspipeline.com/Hurricane_Harvey_Weather_Modification_Evidence.php

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/harvey-steered-texas-coast-microwave-burst-haarp/206437

https://geopolitics.co/2014/02/04/u-s-attacked-philippines-using-haarp/

What verifiable evidence do you have that the radar anomaly was caused specifically by man-made microwave beams? Please don't say, "we have no other explanation for it, therefore it had to be man-made microwave beams", because that would be the argument from ignorance fallacy. Fallacies prove nothing. How about giving us some verifiable evidence that these weather modification satellites exist in the first place?

I'm not asking for some reference to a vague program from the past for which we have no confirmation that it ever reached the scale you propose. I'm asking for unambiguous evidence that these satellites exist now and have the ability to control hurricanes. I'm asking for evidence that is verifiable and does not invoke any kind of fallacious logic. I have yet to see you provide this kind of evidence.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 30/08/2017 23:02:41
What verifiable evidence do you have that the radar anomaly was caused specifically by man-made microwave beams? Please don't say, "we have no other explanation for it, therefore it had to be man-made microwave beams", because that would be the argument from ignorance fallacy. Fallacies prove nothing. How about giving us some verifiable evidence that these weather modification satellites exist in the first place?

I'm not asking for some reference to a vague program from the past for which we have no confirmation that it ever reached the scale you propose. I'm asking for unambiguous evidence that these satellites exist now and have the ability to control hurricanes. I'm asking for evidence that is verifiable and does not invoke any kind of fallacious logic. I have yet to see you provide this kind of evidence.

Do you have any idea what are the capacities of the HAARP system?
HAARP technology is fully functioning and capable of altering geomagnetic storms, including hurricanes.
See: http://www.google.com/patents/US4686605
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2017 23:37:18
Do you have any idea what are the capacities of the HAARP system?
HAARP technology is fully functioning and capable of altering atmospheric storms, including hurricanes.
See: http://www.google.com/patents/US4686605

A search of that patent didn't bring up the term "HAARP" even once. Give us evidence that HAARP is indeed capable of altering the weather on the scale that you propose. Just for the sake of argument, even if part of the original intention of the HAARP program was to alter the weather, that doesn't mean that they were actually able to pull it off in any significant manner. People have tried to use silver iodide to modify the weather but the results were ambiguous at best. How do you know HAARP didn't turn out the same way? Falling short of expectations and instead being used for other purposes? Show some definitive link between HAARP and any given weather event.

The energy available to HAARP is far too small to conceivably have any important effect on something like a hurricane. The facility can produce a radio signal with 3.6 million watts of power, whereas the average hurricane releases around 600 trillion watts of heat energy: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricane-power.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricane-power.html). That means HAARP has only 0.0000006% of the power output of an average hurricane (making the hurricane 167 million times more powerful). That's like comparing the power output of a candle to that of some power plants.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 31/08/2017 00:28:45
OK, who would do this with HAARP and why? Given the massive scale of the storm I consider it improbable.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 31/08/2017 10:06:05
The energy available to HAARP is far too small to conceivably have any important effect on something like a hurricane. The facility can produce a radio signal with 3.6 million watts of power, whereas the average hurricane releases around 600 trillion watts of heat energy: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricane-power.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricane-power.html). That means HAARP has only 0.0000006% of the power output of an average hurricane (making the hurricane 167 million times more powerful). That's like comparing the power output of a candle to that of some power plants.

The HAARP ionospheric heater may intensify tropical hurricanes and geomagnetic storms through geometric modulation:

Quote
Geometric Modulation

Instead of modulating the power of the HF array, and thus not using it at its maximum power, geometric modulation relies on leaving the array on, but moving the beam across the sky at the ELF frequency. Figure 2 shows some examples where the beam can sweep a line or circle in the sky. Each portion of the ionosphere is effectively being heated at the ELF frequency. The heated area is larger which results in larger overall ELF power, and there is phasing between each heated region, which can impart some directionality to the radiated ELF (Cohen et al., 2008; Cohen et al., 2010).

See: http://vlf.stanford.edu/research/experiments-haarp-ionospheric-heater

Note also that High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is supported by the US Air Force Research Laboratory.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Colin2B on 31/08/2017 14:50:09

The energy available to HAARP is far too small to conceivably have any important effect on something like a hurricane. The facility can produce a radio signal with 3.6 million watts of power, whereas the average hurricane releases around 600 trillion watts of heat energy: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricane-power.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/hurricane-power.html). That means HAARP has only 0.0000006% of the power output of an average hurricane (making the hurricane 167 million times more powerful). That's like comparing the power output of a candle to that of some power plants.


The HAARP ionospheric heater may intensify tropical hurricanes and geomagnetic storms through geometric modulation

That's not what the Stanford link is saying. If you use geometric modulation rather than carrier modulation it only allows you to get closer to the carrier power, it doesn't increase the HAARP maximum power above that quoted by Kryptid. It is still far too small to have an effect.

Also, the video shows no evidence of any microwave activity, everything in the video is standard meteorological activity.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 31/08/2017 15:46:10
That's not what the Stanford link is saying. If you use geometric modulation rather than carrier modulation it only allows you to get closer to the carrier power, it doesn't increase the HAARP maximum power above that quoted by Kryptid. It is still far too small to have an effect.

Incorrect. You don't need much electromagnetic power to generate enhanced precipitations (rainfall) ...

Quote
A geomagnetic storm is a complex process: its various features act at different heights. In the F2 layer the midlatitude effect is basically an ionospheric response to storm-induced changes in the neutral atmosphere, which are primarily a consequence of a strong Joule heating in the auroral thermosphere. At lower heights the role of ionization and photochemical processes increases due to shorter electron lifetimes. At the base of the F1 layer (160-170 km) the storm effect is almost absent. At E -region maximum a complex action of several factors results in a slight decrease of foF2, even though below and above, the electron density increases. Farther down, in the lower ionosphere, a strong increase of the electron density is observed as a consequence of a very strong enhancement of particle precipitation.

http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/ijga/v02/gai99312/gai99312.htm
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2017 19:33:41
What verifiable evidence do you have that the radar anomaly was caused specifically by man-made microwave beams? Please don't say, "we have no other explanation for it, therefore it had to be man-made microwave beams", because that would be the argument from ignorance fallacy. Fallacies prove nothing. How about giving us some verifiable evidence that these weather modification satellites exist in the first place?

I'm not asking for some reference to a vague program from the past for which we have no confirmation that it ever reached the scale you propose. I'm asking for unambiguous evidence that these satellites exist now and have the ability to control hurricanes. I'm asking for evidence that is verifiable and does not invoke any kind of fallacious logic. I have yet to see you provide this kind of evidence.

Do you have any idea what are the capacities of the HAARP system?
HAARP technology is fully functioning and capable of altering geomagnetic storms, including hurricanes.
See: http://www.google.com/patents/US4686605
I have already explained to you that patenting something doesn't require it to work.
The patent office don't try out ideas- they just check they are new.

So, why did you post this as it it was evidence of something?
Was it because you didn't understand, or were you trolling?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2017 19:35:42
"Bizarre Radar Anomaly Over Corpus Christi Texas 2 Days Before Harvey Landfall Indicates Mass Weather Modification Took Place."

I will remember that the next time I need an example of a Post hoc ergo propter hoc falacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Don't you think it would be better to post evidence, rather than logical fallacies?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2017 19:38:03
Incorrect. You don't need much electromagnetic power to generate enhanced precipitations (rainfall) ...
A geomagnetic storm has access to enormous power.
What did you think you were talking about?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Colin2B on 31/08/2017 22:15:24
Incorrect. You don't need much electromagnetic power to generate enhanced precipitations (rainfall) ...
Why are you stating irrelevancies? The video link you provided claims, not increased precipitation, but a major disruption to the hurricane wall and a significant diversion of its path. That requires significant energy input as stated previously.

http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/ijga/v02/gai99312/gai99312.htm (http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/ijga/v02/gai99312/gai99312.htm)
Again you quote irrelevancies. This paper does not support your assertions. As Bored Chemist states "A geomagnetic storm has access to enormous power." In 1989, a geomagnetic storm produced ground induced currents that disrupted the electric power system throughout most of the province of Quebec and caused aurorae as far south as Texas. That is a lot of power.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2017 22:30:52
The HAARP ionospheric heater may intensify tropical hurricanes and geomagnetic storms through geometric modulation:

Interesting operative word you have there: "may".

Quote
Instead of modulating the power of the HF array, and thus not using it at its maximum power, geometric modulation relies on leaving the array on, but moving the beam across the sky at the ELF frequency. Figure 2 shows some examples where the beam can sweep a line or circle in the sky. Each portion of the ionosphere is effectively being heated at the ELF frequency. The heated area is larger which results in larger overall ELF power, and there is phasing between each heated region, which can impart some directionality to the radiated ELF (Cohen et al., 2008; Cohen et al., 2010).

Nowhere does this say that this somehow heats any portion of the atmosphere more than 3.6 megawatts of power should normally allow. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics. You can't get something from nothing. How would heating the ionosphere, which starts at 60 kilometers up, strengthen a storm which resides in the troposphere which ends 20 kilometers up? That's not how hurricanes work. Hurricanes derive their strength from the evaporation of warm sea water. If you want to strengthen a hurricane, you'd add heat below it not above it.

Quote
Incorrect. You don't need much electromagnetic power to generate enhanced precipitations (rainfall) ...

Electromagnetic energy cannot magically create extra water vapor in the atmosphere nor can it cause water vapor that is already present to condense into water droplets. The act of water vapor turning into liquid water requires the water vapor to release heat into the surrounding environment. Heating the air with electromagnetic radiation is going to make this process more difficult, not easier. Why do you think you can turn water from a gas into a liquid by heating it up? That goes against even elementary school physics.

Quote
A geomagnetic storm is a complex process: its various features act at different heights. In the F2 layer the midlatitude effect is basically an ionospheric response to storm-induced changes in the neutral atmosphere, which are primarily a consequence of a strong Joule heating in the auroral thermosphere. At lower heights the role of ionization and photochemical processes increases due to shorter electron lifetimes. At the base of the F1 layer (160-170 km) the storm effect is almost absent. At E -region maximum a complex action of several factors results in a slight decrease of foF2, even though below and above, the electron density increases. Farther down, in the lower ionosphere, a strong increase of the electron density is observed as a consequence of a very strong enhancement of particle precipitation.

http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/ijga/v02/gai99312/gai99312.htm

You are completely misreading this. The "precipitation" being spoken of here is not rain. Rain does not come from the ionosphere, it comes from the much lower troposphere. That alone should have told you it wasn't talking about rain. The precipitation in question is subatomic particles. Just how much of that article did you even read? Look here:

Quote
The lower ionosphere ( h < 100 km) responds very dramatically to geomagnetic storms [e.g., Lastovicka, 1988, 1996]. Its electron concentration is considerably enhanced, particularly in the auroral zone, which results in a large increase of radio wave absorption and, eventually, in the disappearance of radio signal in MF/HF ranges. This enhancement of electron density is caused by a strong increase of precipitation of energetic particles, mainly electrons of energies of tens to hundreds kiloelectron volts.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 31/08/2017 22:36:30
A geomagnetic storm has access to enormous power.

I think you have no idea how a hurricane can be manipulated through the precise injection of microwave beams in the lower ionosphere. You can shoot the messenger at will, but I'm definitely not the only one to believe in the potential
role of the HAARP system in this disaster. Believing in magical climate change is stupid and is evidence that mainstream media is implicated in the systemic disinformation about this event..
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 31/08/2017 22:39:36
In reply to @Kryptid: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1006/asle.2001.0043/full
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2017 23:47:54
I think you have no idea how a hurricane can be manipulated through the precise injection of microwave beams in the lower ionosphere.

Nor do you. You severely underestimate the scale and power of a hurricane.

Quote
You can shoot the messenger at will, but I'm definitely not the only one to believe in the potential
role of the HAARP system in this disaster.


So what? There are a lot of people who still believe in a flat Earth too.

Quote
Believing in magical climate change is stupid and is evidence that mainstream media is implicated in the systemic disinformation about this event..

Not as magical as a death ray that can detectably strengthen a hurricane using mere megawatts of power...

In reply to @Kryptid: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1006/asle.2001.0043/full

This is, admittedly, an interesting article. However, it demonstrates correlation, not causation. Instead of changes in the magnetosphere being the cause of strengthening hurricanes, it could be that cosmic ray and solar wind fluxes are themselves directly responsible for hurricane strengthening. Some other cause could also be responsible. More data would be needed to tell the difference. Besides, microwaves do not behave in the same way as charged particle radiation from solar wind or cosmic rays.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 01/09/2017 00:23:48
I'm extremely worried by the unilateral polarisation of free thinking. Thinking different theses days appears like a mental disease. Be careful, however, that this is how brainwashing works...

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 01/09/2017 01:49:22
I'm extremely worried by the unilateral polarisation of free thinking. Thinking different theses days appears like a mental disease. Be careful, however, that this is how brainwashing works...

If by "thinking different" you mean "thinking irrationally" then this is exactly what you are doing. It is the equivalent of seeing branches broken in the woods and concluding that Bigfoot broke them because some people say they have seen Bigfoot in your country before. It takes many unwarranted leaps of logic to connect those broken branches to Bigfoot, much as you are making many unwarranted leaps of logic to connect Hurricane Harvey to HAARP.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 01/09/2017 09:42:27
If by "thinking different" you mean "thinking irrationally" then this is exactly what you are doing. It is the equivalent of seeing branches broken in the woods and concluding that Bigfoot broke them because some people say they have seen Bigfoot in your country before. It takes many unwarranted leaps of logic to connect those broken branches to Bigfoot, much as you are making many unwarranted leaps of logic to connect Hurricane Harvey to HAARP.

To think differently does not imply to think irrationally. It just means to have the genuine ability to make your own theories and to defend them logically from your perspective. I'm deeply wooried by the lack of imagination people may have to connect Hurricane Harvey to some magical climate change fallacy.

Also, brainwashing may works by reducing our abilities to think differently. Using the power of imagination to solve complex problems is not brainwashing.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bill S on 01/09/2017 20:58:36
Quote
Using the power of imagination to solve complex problems is not brainwashing.

Of course it’s not, and the products (figments?) of that imagination might reasonably be discussed by rational people, but real, physical evidence is needed before those “products” can be called science. 

I understand there is also a body of opinion that holds that the hurricane was sent by God to punish “homosexuals”.  I would be fascinated to see the scientific reasoning behind that.   
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 01/09/2017 22:23:39
To think differently does not imply to think irrationally.

Not in general, no. In the specific case of "Harvey was caused by HAARP", however, it does.

Quote
It just means to have the genuine ability to make your own theories and to defend them logically from your perspective.

I think plenty of people come up with their own hypotheses. I certainly have. During college, I independently thought up the Scharnhorst effect during lunch one day (although the Scharnhorst effect hasn't been verified yet). Coming up with a hypothesis doesn't automatically imply that one is able to logically defend it in accordance with existing evidence, however. Go look at that thread started by TheBox about gravity being caused by electromagnetism, for example.

Quote
I'm deeply wooried by the lack of imagination people may have to connect Hurricane Harvey to some magical climate change fallacy.

Even if it turned out that climate change wasn't happening, it would not mean that humans have invented weather-control technology. That would be the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Quote
Also, brainwashing may works by reducing our abilities to think differently. Using the power of imagination to solve complex problems is not brainwashing.

Get back to me once you have actual, verifiable evidence that any kind of brainwashing is taking place on an appreciable scale in the public.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/09/2017 23:31:43
@tkadm30 You are not using the power of imagination to solve complex problems. You are letting your imagination run away with you. If you are so sure the hurricane was 'manipulated' then give us the motive. Why Texas for instance? The conspirators don't like cattle ranchers? Maybe it's to distract us from all the cattle mutilations.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bill S on 02/09/2017 00:56:35
Quote from: Kryptid
During college, I independently thought up the Scharnhorst effect during lunch one day

Interesting that you mention the Scharnhorst effect.  Would it not be equally valid to think that we don’t actually know the speed of light in a complete vacuum?  All we know is the speed of light in the “quantum soup” we call the vacuum.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 02/09/2017 09:27:49
Quote
Using the power of imagination to solve complex problems is not brainwashing.

Of course it’s not, and the products (figments?) of that imagination might reasonably be discussed by rational people, but real, physical evidence is needed before those “products” can be called science. 

My initial question is: "Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering"?



Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 02/09/2017 09:36:42
@tkadm30 You are not using the power of imagination to solve complex problems. You are letting your imagination run away with you. If you are so sure the hurricane was 'manipulated' then give us the motive. Why Texas for instance? The conspirators don't like cattle ranchers? Maybe it's to distract us from all the cattle mutilations.

we are trying to identify real link between geometric modulation and Corpus Christi as evidence of use of
weather-modification technology to intensify Hurricane Harvey with ULF/VLF signal propagation in the ionosphere.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2017 14:37:08
My initial question is: "Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering"?
No, it's just a hurricane.
We have known about them for centuries- well before there was any possibility of geoengineering.
There is no reason to suppose that Harvey was "geoenginered" any more than these ones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricanes_before_1600

So, the simple answer to your question is "no".
You can close the tread now.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 02/09/2017 14:48:26
My initial question is: "Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering"?
No, it's just a hurricane.
We have known about them for centuries- well before there was any possibility of geoengineering.

You have no proof that this geomagnetic storm did not happened because of directed ULF/VLF signaling
in the ionosphere. This hurricane was the signature of a frankenstorm; not your typical hurricane.

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2017 18:13:04

You have no proof that this geomagnetic storm did not happened because of directed ULF/VLF signaling
in the ionosphere. This hurricane was the signature of a frankenstorm; not your typical hurricane.
You  have no proof that it wasn't caused by masses of invisible unicorns farting.
But it would be just as foolish to think that was the cause as it would be to leap to the conclusion that it was caused by geoengineering..

You should learn some ideas like the nature of evidence and the burden of proof before you try posting on grown-up science web sites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

You say "This hurricane was the signature of a frankenstorm; not your typical hurricane."
Is a "frankenstorm" properly defined, of something made up by the media /weather presenters?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 02/09/2017 20:38:36
Interesting that you mention the Scharnhorst effect.  Would it not be equally valid to think that we don’t actually know the speed of light in a complete vacuum?  All we know is the speed of light in the “quantum soup” we call the vacuum.

If I remember correctly, I once plugged some of the equations into a spreadsheet and found that you can get the speed of light all the way up to infinity with sufficiently close Casimir plate separations. However, I'm a little doubtful that would work in practice.

You have no proof that this geomagnetic storm did not happened because of directed ULF/VLF signaling
in the ionosphere.

No, no, no! This must be the third time I've told you that you can't do this. You are shifting the burden of proof. You don't tell your opponents to disprove your claim: you have to prove it. Would you assume that Bigfoot exists solely because he hasn't been proven not to exist? That is faulty reasoning.

Quote
This hurricane was the signature of a frankenstorm; not your typical hurricane.

Based on what reasoning? Nothing about Hurricane Harvey was beyond nature's ability to produce. There have been tropical cyclones in the past that have exceeded Harvey in every way: wind speed, diameter, rainfall, the works.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: evan_au on 02/09/2017 20:47:11
Quote from: Kryptid
Nothing about Hurricane Harvey was beyond nature's ability to produce.
On the international news tonight, the Asia reporter commented that the recent floods in Asia were 8 times more severe than Hurricane Harvey.

Unfortunately, I missed the measure he was using for this comparison, but I got the impression he was talking about water volume.

Of course, the annual monsoon that affects a continent would dump a lot more water than a relatively local hurricane...
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 03/09/2017 02:16:09
Of course, the annual monsoon that affects a continent would dump a lot more water than a relatively local hurricane...

A lot of tropical cyclones worldwide have exceeded Hurricane Harvey in terms of rainfall. Wikipedia lists 39 with higher rainfall records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wettest_tropical_cyclones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wettest_tropical_cyclones). HAARP was established in 1993, and 18 of these storms occurred before that year. Surely not even tkadm30 believes that each of these storms were amped by secret weather control technology?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 03/09/2017 10:30:03
You say "This hurricane was the signature of a frankenstorm; not your typical hurricane."
Is a "frankenstorm" properly defined, of something made up by the media /weather presenters?

I did not invented the term "frankenstorm"...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 03/09/2017 10:37:20
A lot of tropical cyclones worldwide have exceeded Hurricane Harvey in terms of rainfall. Wikipedia lists 39 with higher rainfall records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wettest_tropical_cyclones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wettest_tropical_cyclones). HAARP was established in 1993, and 18 of these storms occurred before that year. Surely not even tkadm30 believes that each of these storms were amped by secret weather control technology?

lol

Do you deny the existence of superhurricanes?

Do you think superhurricanes are evidences of directed ULF/VLF signal propagation in the lower ionosphere?



Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 03/09/2017 13:50:07
If Hurricane Harvey was a geomagnetic storm, the probability that directed ULF/VLF signal propagation in the ionosphere caused a strong ionospheric response is high.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bill S on 03/09/2017 14:19:14
Quote from: Kryptid
If I remember correctly, I once plugged some of the equations into a spreadsheet and found that you can get the speed of light all the way up to infinity with sufficiently close Casimir plate separations. However, I'm a little doubtful that would work in practice.

I suspect that any calculation that includes infinity will not work in practice.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 03/09/2017 14:59:21
Do you deny the existence of superhurricanes?

If by "superhurricane" you mean "really strong hurricane", of course not.

Quote
Do you think superhurricanes are evidences of directed ULF/VLF signal propagation in the lower ionosphere?

Absolutely not. Powerful hurricanes have occurred for a very long time.

If Hurricane Harvey was a geomagnetic storm, the probability that directed ULF/VLF signal propagation in the ionosphere caused a strong ionospheric response is high.

No it isn't. You haven't demonstrated any way to distinguish between a naturally occurring hurricane and one that is manipulated by weather technology. What test would you use?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2017 15:27:05
I did not invented the term "frankenstorm"..
Nobody said you did.
However, unless you can say what it means, you might as well not bother with the word.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: evan_au on 03/09/2017 15:42:54
Quote from: tkadm30
If Hurricane Harvey was a geomagnetic storm, the probability that directed ULF/VLF signal propagation in the ionosphere caused a strong ionospheric response is high.
Geomagnetic storms are well-studied. One in March 1989 blacked out much of Quebec, and caused auroras as far south as Florida. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm

Since then, a lot of study has gone into geomagnetic storms, how to measure them, predict them, and how to minimise damage from them.

The power levels are so high, and the frequencies involved are so low that it is currently impossible for humans to generate anything even approaching what the Sun can do (and has done).

So I don't think that hurricane Harvey was a geomagnetic storm. It was a weather storm.

You can find a lot of current information here, in a rather accessible form: http://spaceweather.com/
If you want to research associations between Hurricanes and geomagnetic storms, you can find detailed historical information here:
https://ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/spaceweather.html
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 04/09/2017 10:47:48
You haven't demonstrated any way to distinguish between a naturally occurring hurricane and one that is manipulated by weather technology. What test would you use?

Its quite simple. You simply need to visualize ionospheric ULF/VLF signal propagation (heat) during and after the storm for Corpus Christi (and Houston). You may find out that the distance (D) between Corpus Christi and Houston matches the relative intensity (RI) of ionospheric heat for this precise geolocation.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 04/09/2017 11:19:24
Geomagnetic storms are well-studied. One in March 1989 blacked out much of Quebec, and caused auroras as far south as Florida. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm

Since then, a lot of study has gone into geomagnetic storms, how to measure them, predict them, and how to minimise damage from them.

The power levels are so high, and the frequencies involved are so low that it is currently impossible for humans to generate anything even approaching what the Sun can do (and has done).

So I don't think that hurricane Harvey was a geomagnetic storm. It was a weather storm.

You can find a lot of current information here, in a rather accessible form: http://spaceweather.com/
If you want to research associations between Hurricanes and geomagnetic storms, you can find detailed historical information here:
https://ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/spaceweather.html

All storms are ionospheric by nature. The lower ionosphere produces stratospheric storms, heat, and rainfall.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Colin2B on 04/09/2017 15:20:49
If Hurricane Harvey was a geomagnetic storm, the probability that directed ULF/VLF signal propagation in the ionosphere caused a strong ionospheric response is high.
Harvey was not a geomagnetic storm.
Hurricanes and geomagnetic storms are totally different phenomena with totally different causes, the only thing they have in common is the name storm. Whoever is feeding you misinformation doesn't understand the difference and certainly doesn't understand hurricanes.
Take the example of the video you linked to. The narrator describes 2 disruptions to the eye wall - claimed to be due to geoengineering - however, as I said earlier, these are natural events in normal hurricanes. You have to forget the cartoon graphics of hurricanes and realise that these are dynamic systems in which the eyewall is in constant change. In a strong hurricane like Harvey rainbands spiral in from the outside and form multiple eyewalls, the central eyewall will then disappear (appearing to be disrupted) and be replaced by the outer wall. Known as the eyewall replacement cycle this can have serious consequence as the power of the hurricane can increase dramatically following such a replacement and if it occurs before landfall the damage can be substantially magnified.

All storms are ionospheric by nature. The lower ionosphere produces stratospheric storms, heat, and rainfall.
This is also misinformation. Stratospheric storms are not ionospheric. The lower band of the ionosphere is significantly above the top of the stratosphere and does not produce any stratospheric weather storms or rainfall.
Another piece of misinformation is that heating the upper layers will increase the power of a hurricane. Hurricanes are heat engines, in conditions ideal for a rapid increase in strength - high water temperatures and low wind shear - warm moist air rises and then cools, releasing heat, to fall and recirculate into the base of the hurricane. This cooling and recirculation is essential for the continuation of the cycle and any heating of the upper layers would disrupt the process and weaken the hurricane.

You haven't demonstrated any way to distinguish between a naturally occurring hurricane and one that is manipulated by weather technology. What test would you use?
Its quite simple. You simply need to visualize ionospheric ULF/VLF signal propagation (heat) during and after the storm for Corpus Christi (and Houston). You may find out that the distance (D) between Corpus Christi and Houston matches the relative intensity (RI) of ionospheric heat for this precise geolocation.
As explained above this heating cannot increase the strength of the hurricane.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: jeffreyH on 04/09/2017 17:50:35
I think tkadm30 adheres to the tried and tested principle of putting ones fingers in ones ears and reciting the scientific mantra "la la la la la not listening." I believe this was first practiced by Newton in his many disputes with rivals.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 04/09/2017 22:24:34
ionospheric ULF/VLF signal propagation (heat)

And how do you know that any given region of heat is caused by "ionospheric ULF/VLF signal propagation"?

Quote
You may find out that the distance (D) between Corpus Christi and Houston matches the relative intensity (RI) of ionospheric heat for this precise geolocation.

Citation needed.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: mrsmith2211 on 05/09/2017 01:13:42
So far as I can surmise, this is a random act of nature, to post your question to you,
You haven't demonstrated any way to distinguish between a naturally occurring hurricane and one that is manipulated by weather technology. What test would you use?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 05/09/2017 09:54:59
And how do you know that any given region of heat is caused by "ionospheric ULF/VLF signal propagation"?

i believe superhurricanes are partly influenced by directed ionospheric heating. It is well established that electromagnetic energy creates heat when emitting microwaves beams. This heating power may influence superhurricane formation and intensity.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2017 18:43:20
And how do you know that any given region of heat is caused by "ionospheric ULF/VLF signal propagation"?

i believe superhurricanes are partly influenced by directed ionospheric heating. It is well established that electromagnetic energy creates heat when emitting microwaves beams. This heating power may influence superhurricane formation and intensity.

Reality doesn't give a flying one what you believe; nor will we unless you have evidence.

I think tkadm30 adheres to the tried and tested principle of putting ones fingers in ones ears and reciting the scientific mantra "la la la la la not listening." I believe this was first practiced by Newton in his many disputes with rivals.
The difference was that Newton was quite often right whereas tkadm30 ...isn't.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 05/09/2017 23:09:47
i believe superhurricanes are partly influenced by directed ionospheric heating. It is well established that electromagnetic energy creates heat when emitting microwaves beams. This heating power may influence superhurricane formation and intensity.

I presumed when you said "signal" that you were directly implying that the heating was artificial. What I'm looking for is a way to tell natural heating from artificial heating.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 06/09/2017 09:39:40
I presumed when you said "signal" that you were directly implying that the heating was artificial. What I'm looking for is a way to tell natural heating from artificial heating.

Interesting question.
What do you think a "ionospheric heater" is built for?
Note the patent I linked is fully describing the method and apparatus used for "altering a region in the [ionosphere]":

Quote
The region is excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating to thereby increase its charged particle density. In one embodiment, circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation is transmitted upward in a direction substantially parallel to and along a field line which extends through the region of plasma to be altered. The radiation is transmitted at a frequency which excites electron cyclotron resonance to heat and accelerate the charged particles. This increase in energy can cause ionization of neutral particles which are then absorbed as part of the region thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region.

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 06/09/2017 11:57:01
If Hurricane Harvey was a geomagnetic storm, the probability that directed ULF/VLF signal propagation in the ionosphere caused a strong ionospheric response is high.
Harvey was not a geomagnetic storm.
Hurricanes and geomagnetic storms are totally different phenomena with totally different causes, the only thing they have in common is the name storm. Whoever is feeding you misinformation doesn't understand the difference and certainly doesn't understand hurricanes.
Take the example of the video you linked to. The narrator describes 2 disruptions to the eye wall - claimed to be due to geoengineering - however, as I said earlier, these are natural events in normal hurricanes. You have to forget the cartoon graphics of hurricanes and realise that these are dynamic systems in which the eyewall is in constant change. In a strong hurricane like Harvey rainbands spiral in from the outside and form multiple eyewalls, the central eyewall will then disappear (appearing to be disrupted) and be replaced by the outer wall. Known as the eyewall replacement cycle this can have serious consequence as the power of the hurricane can increase dramatically following such a replacement and if it occurs before landfall the damage can be substantially magnified.

All storms are ionospheric by nature. The lower ionosphere produces stratospheric storms, heat, and rainfall.
This is also misinformation. Stratospheric storms are not ionospheric. The lower band of the ionosphere is significantly above the top of the stratosphere and does not produce any stratospheric weather storms or rainfall.
Another piece of misinformation is that heating the upper layers will increase the power of a hurricane. Hurricanes are heat engines, in conditions ideal for a rapid increase in strength - high water temperatures and low wind shear - warm moist air rises and then cools, releasing heat, to fall and recirculate into the base of the hurricane. This cooling and recirculation is essential for the continuation of the cycle and any heating of the upper layers would disrupt the process and weaken the hurricane.

You haven't demonstrated any way to distinguish between a naturally occurring hurricane and one that is manipulated by weather technology. What test would you use?
Its quite simple. You simply need to visualize ionospheric ULF/VLF signal propagation (heat) during and after the storm for Corpus Christi (and Houston). You may find out that the distance (D) between Corpus Christi and Houston matches the relative intensity (RI) of ionospheric heat for this precise geolocation.
As explained above this heating cannot increase the strength of the hurricane.

All storms are influenced by ionospheric and geomagnetic variations in the lower ionosphere.
It is inaccurate to imply that stratospheric storms are different from ionospheric storms.
Both are interconnected atmospheric components critical to the behavior and intensity of hurricanes.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 06/09/2017 15:03:38
Interesting question.
What do you think a "ionospheric heater" is built for?
Note the patent I linked is fully describing the method and apparatus used for "altering a region in the [ionosphere]":

Quote
The region is excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating to thereby increase its charged particle density. In one embodiment, circularly polarized electromagnetic radiation is transmitted upward in a direction substantially parallel to and along a field line which extends through the region of plasma to be altered. The radiation is transmitted at a frequency which excites electron cyclotron resonance to heat and accelerate the charged particles. This increase in energy can cause ionization of neutral particles which are then absorbed as part of the region thereby increasing the charged particle density of the region.

That didn't answer my question. This is akin to me asking "How do you tell a crater created by a bomb from a crater created by a meteorite?" and you giving the answer of "What do you think a bomb is built for?". I know that HAARP can send microwaves into the ionosphere, which would result in (some) heating. What I'm asking for specifically is how to tell the difference between heating caused by nature and heating caused by technology? How do the two look different?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 06/09/2017 15:15:22
That didn't answer my question. This is akin to me asking "How do you tell a crater created by a bomb from a crater created by a meteorite?" and you giving the answer of "What do you think a bomb is built for?". I know that HAARP can send microwaves into the ionosphere, which would result in (some) heating. What I'm asking for specifically is how to tell the difference between heating caused by nature and heating caused by technology? How do the two look different?

Do natural aurora borealis affect the intensity of tropical hurricanes? The difference between a superhurricane and a (tropical) hurricane is in its ionospheric composition. Altering the ionospheric variation of electrons particle in a hurricane may increase its relative intensity. (heat)
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 06/09/2017 15:48:38
That didn't answer my question. This is akin to me asking "How do you tell a crater created by a bomb from a crater created by a meteorite?" and you giving the answer of "What do you think a bomb is built for?". I know that HAARP can send microwaves into the ionosphere, which would result in (some) heating. What I'm asking for specifically is how to tell the difference between heating caused by nature and heating caused by technology? How do the two look different?

Do natural aurora borealis affect the intensity of tropical hurricanes? The difference between a superhurricane and a (tropical) hurricane is in its ionospheric composition. Altering the ionospheric variation of electrons particle in a hurricane may increase its relative intensity. (heat)


That still didn't answer my question. Assuming for a moment that ionospheric heating does have some kind of impact on hurricane strength (which I'm not convinced of, by the way), how do you tell artificial heating from natural heating? This should not be a hard question to understand. If you had some kind of infrared image of the ionosphere associated with a hurricane, what signatures would you look for to justify calling that heating artificial instead of natural? How could you possibly tell the difference? How do you know what a difference would even look like?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2017 18:05:23
Do natural aurora borealis affect the intensity of tropical hurricanes?
Not really, no.
Can you think why?
Here's a hint. one happens at the poles...
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 06/09/2017 21:03:49
That still didn't answer my question. Assuming for a moment that ionospheric heating does have some kind of impact on hurricane strength (which I'm not convinced of, by the way), how do you tell artificial heating from natural heating? This should not be a hard question to understand. If you had some kind of infrared image of the ionosphere associated with a hurricane, what signatures would you look for to justify calling that heating artificial instead of natural? How could you possibly tell the difference? How do you know what a difference would even look like?

You would need to look at infrared microwave radiation. Typically a tropical storm like Harvey must have a very strong electron density in the lower ionosphere.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2017 21:14:37
You would need to look at infrared microwave radiation.
That makes as much sense as saying "you should buy green purple paint".
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 06/09/2017 21:52:51
You would need to look at infrared microwave radiation.

Okay. So where is it?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 06/09/2017 23:09:45
You would need to look at infrared microwave radiation.

Okay. So where is it?

Superhurricane Irma heat map can be visualized here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/irma-atlantic-ocean
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 06/09/2017 23:59:37
You would need to look at infrared microwave radiation.

Okay. So where is it?

Superhurricane Irma heat map can be visualized here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/irma-atlantic-ocean

I thought we were talking about Hurricane Harvey? Are you implying Irma is also being engineered? In that case, show me the microwave beam created by HAARP on that heat map. I sure don't see it.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 07/09/2017 09:31:31
I thought we were talking about Hurricane Harvey? Are you implying Irma is also being engineered? In that case, show me the microwave beam created by HAARP on that heat map. I sure don't see it.

Directed ULF/VLF signal propagation may induce region-specific alterations in the lower ionosphere.
That is what geometric modulation is designed for.
If you're interested in real-time ionospheric maps produced by the NASA, see: https://iono.jpl.nasa.gov/latest_rti_global.html
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2017 16:35:55
Directed ULF/VLF signal propagation may induce region-specific alterations in the lower ionosphere.
That is what geometric modulation is designed for.
If you're interested in real-time ionospheric maps produced by the NASA, see: https://iono.jpl.nasa.gov/latest_rti_global.html

So you can't show me the beam. That's all I needed to know.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 07/09/2017 18:01:42
So you can't show me the beam. That's all I needed to know.

Thats irrelevant.
You think for a second that any evidence of [HAARP] influence on this hurricane would be put online
on facebook?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2017 19:24:17
Lots f pretty pictures. But they look like hurricanes always did.
So what's the evidence that this one is in any way "special"?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 07/09/2017 20:04:48
Lots f pretty pictures. But they look like hurricanes always did.
So what's the evidence that this one is in any way "special"?


If a superhurricane is the signature of climate change, something is terribly wrong with this theory.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2017 21:57:03
Thats irrelevant.

It's very relevant. If you can't show me a microwave beam heating the ionosphere above a hurricane why should I believe there ever was one? I'm not just going to take your word for it.

Quote
You think for a second that any evidence of [HAARP] influence on this hurricane would be put online
on facebook?

Thank you for finally admitting that you don't have evidence to show me.

Quote
If a superhurricane is the signature of climate change, something is terribly wrong with this theory.

Yes, something is terribly wrong with your weather tech theory.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 07/09/2017 22:03:51
something is terribly wrong with your weather tech theory.

Nothing wrong with my "weather tech theory", unless your belief in climate change can explain the recent hurricanes intensification!
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2017 22:27:10
Nothing wrong with my "weather tech theory", unless your belief in climate change can explain the recent hurricanes intensification!

You still don't know what the argument from ignorance is, do you?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 08/09/2017 09:28:58
You still don't know what the argument from ignorance is, do you?

Yes, climate change is argument from ignorance. Now please carry on and accept the hypothesis that superhurricanes are potentially caused by man-made geoengineering.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2017 16:41:05
Yes, climate change is argument from ignorance.

Just as I thought, you don't understand what it means.

Quote
Now please carry on and accept the hypothesis that superhurricanes are potentially caused by man-made geoengineering.

"Potentially"? That doesn't sound very confident of you.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Colin2B on 08/09/2017 18:34:23

Nothing wrong with my "weather tech theory", unless your belief in climate change can explain the recent hurricanes intensification!
The original question here is not whether climate change causes hurricane intensification, but whether artificial heating of the ionosphere can.
Currently you have not provided any evidence of a connection between the elf in the ionosphere and hurricanes.
Hurricanes exist in the troposphere and reach a height of around 12-16km. The ionosphere lies between 75 and 1000km. Any artificial heating or modification of the ionosphere would be reduced by inverse square law to minuscule levels by the time it reached the hurricane.

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 08/09/2017 19:02:48
Any artificial heating or modification of the ionosphere would be reduced by inverse square law to minuscule levels by the time it reached the hurricane.

Citation needed.

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2017 19:23:00
Citation needed.

Oh, the irony!
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 08/09/2017 19:49:27
Citation needed.

Oh, the irony!

You just don't understand that the fabrication of climate change theory is to justify the weaponization of weather modification technology. Meanwhile, I still expecting an intelligent explanation to the question: "How climate change may cause hurricanes intensity changes and enhanced rainfall"?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2017 20:06:27
You just don't understand that the fabrication of climate change theory...

Okay, so now you think there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify global temperature data...

Quote
...is to justify the weaponization of weather modification technology.

...in addition to a conspiracy to secretly control the weather. You also think there is a conspiracy to use smartphones  to read our minds. Why should we believe you when you cry "conspiracy" about anything?

Quote
Meanwhile, I still expecting an intelligent explanation to the question: "How climate change may cause hurricanes intensity changes and enhanced rainfall"?

An elementary school student could answer that question. Warmer oceans cause increased evaporation of water, putting more moisture and latent heat energy into the atmosphere. It's basic physics. Unless you think physics is a conspiracy too? Like I've said before, even if we did not have the climate change explanation, that wouldn't mean that geoengineering is the correct explanation. This isn't an "either/or" scenario. That's a false dichotomy. It could have turned out that both climate change and geoengineering were the wrong explanation. This is why you cannot say "climate change is a hoax, therefore stronger hurricanes are caused by technology". That's the argument from ignorance fallacy. Failure for your opponent to support their argument is not evidence that your argument is the correct one. Both sides have to provide their own independent evidence.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Colin2B on 08/09/2017 22:54:08
Any artificial heating or modification of the ionosphere would be reduced by inverse square law to minuscule levels by the time it reached the hurricane.

Citation needed.
Do you seriously not own any basic physics textbooks! Or do you just not understand basic physics?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/09/2017 08:30:20
An elementary school student could answer that question.

I challenge you to ask a elementary school student to provide a scientifically valid answer. The reality is that kids are more vulnerable to brainwashing. I'm thinking there's a lot of brainwashing elements surrounding the role of "climate change" in the development of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

 
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/09/2017 08:35:45
Do you seriously not own any basic physics textbooks! Or do you just not understand basic physics?

Is it the same textbook that will deny or ignore any clandestine geoengineering activity on top of my home?

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2017 13:30:32
Lots f pretty pictures. But they look like hurricanes always did.
So what's the evidence that this one is in any way "special"?


If a superhurricane is the signature of climate change, something is terribly wrong with this theory.

OK, first off, you forgot to answer the question.
"So what's the evidence that this one is in any way "special"?"


Secondly, re. "If a superhurricane is the signature of climate change, something is terribly wrong with this theory." that's a big  "if".
Weather is fundamentally driven  by the Sun's heat.
Coupling more of the Sun's IR into the atmosphere by adding more CO2 which absorbs that energy will produce more severe weather.
So we would expect to see more  big hurricanes.

We have more CO2.
We have more big storms.

What's wrong with the theory?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Colin2B on 09/09/2017 14:02:52
Is it the same textbook that will deny or ignore any clandestine geoengineering activity on top of my home?
None of them deny clandestine geoengineering. Neither do they deny existence of Bigfoot or clandestine neuroprobing etc. The clue is in the title 'Physics textbook', they discuss physics. However, as you don't seem inclined to discuss physics. I'm out.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: jeffreyH on 09/09/2017 14:16:18
Hey tk it must be your hero Trump modifying the weather so he can get some more hurricane damage insurance. Last time it was allegedly a scam so this time he has to get real evidence. He has had to drop the sale price of his Caribbean property so what better way to get the price he wants? So maybe you are the disinformation guy providing the smokescreen for the Trump machine.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2017 16:29:08
I challenge you to ask a elementary school student to provide a scientifically valid answer.

Go watch the show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?" You'd be impressed at how much science they know.

Quote
The reality is that kids are more vulnerable to brainwashing.

Do you have any idea how long the concepts of the water cycle and thermodynamics have been around or taught in schools? Don't tell me that you think those concepts were invented by conspirators in anticipation of a future where secret forces are controlling the weather.

Quote
I'm thinking there's a lot of brainwashing elements surrounding the role of "climate change" in the development of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

You can think whatever you want to, just don't expect others to agree with you without good evidence.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/09/2017 18:53:41
Hey tk it must be your hero Trump modifying the weather so he can get some more hurricane damage insurance. Last time it was allegedly a scam so this time he has to get real evidence. He has had to drop the sale price of his Caribbean property so what better way to get the price he wants? So maybe you are the disinformation guy providing the smokescreen for the Trump machine.

Nice one jeffrey...
If 1 out of 100 people can think independently and freely, how absurd is the idea to try to persuade him with fabricated nonsense about Trump. I don't hate Trump, I'm just glad democracy worked this time.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/09/2017 18:57:53
You can think whatever you want to, just don't expect others to agree with you without good evidence.

What do you think the purpose of my initial post is?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2017 19:50:28
What do you think the purpose of my initial post is?

To get us to accept an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence to back it up. It seems to be a running theme with your topics.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/09/2017 20:00:34
To get us to accept an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence to back it up. It seems to be a running theme with your topics.

lol....


no. :)

The true purpose of this post is education and information.

People volition will decide what is the truth.

The primary objective is purely educational and informational.

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2017 20:33:09
lol....


no. :)

The true purpose of this post is education and information.

People volition will decide what is the truth.

The primary objective is purely educational and informational.

You would think that step number one for educating someone about any topic would be to make sure that the information presented is accurate. You certainly haven't done that. You have done nothing to verify the accuracy of your claims that HAARP can control hurricanes or that Hurricane Harvey specifically was modified by HAARP.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/09/2017 20:45:35
You would think that step number one for educating someone about any topic would be to make sure that the information presented is accurate. You certainly haven't done that. You have done nothing to verify the accuracy of your claims that HAARP can control hurricanes or that Hurricane Harvey specifically was modified by HAARP.

lol..

This is a unverifiable claim not supported by evidences.

Please note:

1. I do not claim that Hurricane Harvey and Irma are specifically modified by HAARP.
2. I only request intelligent feedback on the potential role of directed ionospheric heating in hurricane intensification.


Thank you
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2017 20:58:30
This is a inverifiable claim not supported by evidences.

So can we close this thread? No point in discussing an outlandish claim that you agree has no supporting evidence.

Quote
1. I do not claim that Hurricane Harvey and Irma are specifically modified by HAARP.

Oh, right, you're only "suggesting" that weather-modification technology (HAARP or satellites or whatever) "may" have been involved in the modification of Hurricane Harvey. You did, however, make this statement:

HAARP technology is fully functioning and capable of altering geomagnetic storms, including hurricanes.

You very clearly claimed here that HAARP can modify hurricanes.

Quote
2. I only request intelligent feedback on the potential role of directed ionospheric heating in hurricane intensification.

Oh please, don't try to suddenly downplay the weather modification angle you're so obviously pushing (as per the previous quote I mentioned where you say HAARP can indeed alter hurricanes).
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/09/2017 21:31:18
This is a inverifiable claim not supported by evidences.

So can we close this thread? No point in discussing an outlandish claim that you agree has no supporting evidence.

Quote
1. I do not claim that Hurricane Harvey and Irma are specifically modified by HAARP.

Oh, right, you're only "suggesting" that weather-modification technology (HAARP or satellites or whatever) "may" have been involved in the modification of Hurricane Harvey. You did, however, make this statement:

HAARP technology is fully functioning and capable of altering geomagnetic storms, including hurricanes.

You very clearly claimed here that HAARP can modify hurricanes.

Quote
2. I only request intelligent feedback on the potential role of directed ionospheric heating in hurricane intensification.

Oh please, don't try to suddenly downplay the weather modification angle you're so obviously pushing (as per the previous quote I mentioned where you say HAARP can indeed alter hurricanes).

lol... the irony!

This is nothing personal Kryptid, but don't get your emotions tackle your analytical skills. :)

We can close the thread whenever no one has anything scientific to say about ionospheric heating and the effects of directed ULF/VLF microwave modulation on hurricane formation - I'm particularly interested by geometric modulation and ULF/VLF signal propagation in the lower ionosphere.

 

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2017 22:10:31
We can close the thread whenever no one has anything scientific to say about ionospheric heating and the effects of directed ULF/VLF microwave modulation on hurricane formation
Mankind has no  technology  powerful enough to meaningfully  influence the behaviour of a hurricane.
" Total energy released through cloud/rain formation:
An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 10^16 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives
5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day or
6.0 x 10^14 Watts.

This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity - an incredible amount of energy produced!"
from
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html

Apart from that, there's nothing scientific to say about it.
So, we can- by the OP's own reckoning- close the thread.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 09/09/2017 22:17:52
An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain
You're comparing an apple with an orange. A "superhurricane" like Harvey belong to another class of hurricanes.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2017 23:00:59
lol... the irony!

This is nothing personal Kryptid, but don't get your emotions tackle your analytical skills. :)

My conclusion that there isn't any weather-control technology of the type you speak isn't an emotionally-derived one. It's based on the fact that I have no reason to believe that it exists (and several reasons to believe that it does not).

Quote
We can close the thread whenever no one has anything scientific to say about ionospheric heating and the effects of directed ULF/VLF microwave modulation on hurricane formation - I'm particularly interested by geometric modulation and ULF/VLF signal propagation in the lower ionosphere.

We already have: there is no scientifically conclusive evidence to suggest that microwaves directed into the ionosphere have any effect on hurricane formation. Everyone else here is in agreement with that. You are the only one saying otherwise.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 10/09/2017 09:18:56
lol... the irony!

This is nothing personal Kryptid, but don't get your emotions tackle your analytical skills. :)

My conclusion that there isn't any weather-control technology of the type you speak isn't an emotionally-derived one. It's based on the fact that I have no reason to believe that it exists (and several reasons to believe that it does not).

Quote
We can close the thread whenever no one has anything scientific to say about ionospheric heating and the effects of directed ULF/VLF microwave modulation on hurricane formation - I'm particularly interested by geometric modulation and ULF/VLF signal propagation in the lower ionosphere.

We already have: there is no scientifically conclusive evidence to suggest that microwaves directed into the ionosphere have any effect on hurricane formation. Everyone else here is in agreement with that. You are the only one saying otherwise.

You should read "Owning the weather in 2025".
I'm sorry I can't disclose topsecret informations on HAARP.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 09:45:23
I'm sorry I can't disclose topsecret informations on HAARP.
If you know about it, then it can't be that secret.
If it's secret then it can't be verified so it's not scientific.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 10/09/2017 09:56:18
I'm sorry I can't disclose topsecret informations on HAARP.
If you know about it, then it can't be that secret.
If it's secret then it can't be verified so it's not scientific.

I disagree; Information is a secret weapon in this world we live in.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 10:07:24
I'm just glad democracy worked this time.
It's way off topic but, in the interests of maintaining factual accuracy- which I think is important on a science web site- the candidate who won more votes didn't get elected.
Democracy failed to take place. There is no need for further discussion of that fact in this thread.

The true purpose of this post is education and information.

People volition will decide what is the truth.
Education is only going to happen here when you accept that you are wrong and learn what is right.
On which note you are wrong to say "People volition will decide what is the truth."
Reality will decide what is the truth.
That's the whole point of science, and you seem to be wilfully trying to pretend it's not true.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 10:10:21
I'm sorry I can't disclose topsecret informations on HAARP.
If you know about it, then it can't be that secret.
If it's secret then it can't be verified so it's not scientific.

I disagree; Information is a secret weapon in this world we live in.

Non sequitur.
The point remains, if it's secret  it can't be verified so it's not science.
It can, however be scientifically refuted.
Since a hurricane has about  a hundred times more power than the whole of  humanity can muster, it's fair to assume we are not going to change a hurricane by very much.
Unless you can propose a plausible mechanism by which a gnat's fart of power is gong to make a difference, you can stop wasting our time on the idea.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 10/09/2017 10:19:20
Non sequitur.

Are you going to speak latin everytime you want to insist in your complete ignorance of my post?
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 10/09/2017 15:11:25
You should read "Owning the weather in 2025".

You mean this? http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf (http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf)

Here is an interesting excerpt from the paper:

Quote
The desirability to modify storms to support military objectives is the most aggressive and
controversial type of weather-modification. The damage caused by storms is indeed horrendous. For
instance, a tropical storm has an energy equal to 10,000 one-megaton hydrogen bombs,18 and in 1992
Hurricane Andrew totally destroyed Homestead AFB, Florida, caused the evacuation of most military
aircraft in the southeastern US, and resulted in $15.5 billion of damage. However, as one would expect
based on a storm’s energy level, current scientific literature indicates that there are definite physical limits on
mankind’s ability to modify storm systems
. By taking this into account along with political, environmental,
economic, legal, and moral considerations, we will confine our analysis of storms to localized thunderstorms
and thus do not consider major storm systems such as hurricanes or intense low-pressure systems.

This is exactly what we've been saying all along.

Quote
I'm sorry I can't disclose topsecret informations on HAARP.

You're assuming that HAARP has weather controlling abilities that are being kept secret in the first place.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 10/09/2017 22:44:45
You mean this? http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf (http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf)

Here is an interesting excerpt from the paper:

Quote
The desirability to modify storms to support military objectives is the most aggressive and
controversial type of weather-modification. The damage caused by storms is indeed horrendous. For
instance, a tropical storm has an energy equal to 10,000 one-megaton hydrogen bombs,18 and in 1992
Hurricane Andrew totally destroyed Homestead AFB, Florida, caused the evacuation of most military
aircraft in the southeastern US, and resulted in $15.5 billion of damage. However, as one would expect
based on a storm’s energy level, current scientific literature indicates that there are definite physical limits on
mankind’s ability to modify storm systems
. By taking this into account along with political, environmental,
economic, legal, and moral considerations, we will confine our analysis of storms to localized thunderstorms
and thus do not consider major storm systems such as hurricanes or intense low-pressure systems.

This is exactly what we've been saying all along.

This is not claiming that weather modification (geoengineering) technology is not possible... And topsecret information must not even be mentioned in official documents like this one.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 10/09/2017 23:00:15
This is not claiming that weather modification (geoengineering) technology is not possible...

Of course not. It's saying that hurricanes specifically are beyond our current limits to practically control. We might be able to control hurricanes in the future, but there is no indication that we have anywhere near the needed technology to do it today.
 
Quote
And topsecret information must not even be mentioned in official documents like this one.

You're assuming that such information exists in the first place.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 11/09/2017 09:23:20
Of course not. It's saying that hurricanes specifically are beyond our current limits to practically control. We might be able to control hurricanes in the future, but there is no indication that we have anywhere near the needed technology to do it today.

I largely agree, but remember that this document is outdated...

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 11/09/2017 19:08:28
I largely agree, but remember that this document is outdated...

As Bored Chemist pointed out, even the worldwide power output is only 0.5% of that generated by an average hurricane (much less a "superhurricane", as you call them), so we certainly have not come anywhere close to closing the technology gap since this document was published.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2017 20:09:19
Non sequitur.

Are you going to speak latin everytime you want to insist in your complete ignorance of my post?

"Non sequitur" is derived from Latin, but it is part of the English language.
If you don't want to use English words derived from Latin, you will have problems.
For example you can use the words highlighted here

"Are you going to speak latin every time you want to insist in your complete ignorance of my post".

But, rather than deciding to complain about words, perhaps you should try addressing the issued they raise.

The assertion you made wasn't logically connected to the things you based it on.

Your assertion " Information is a secret weapon in this world we live in." may even be true, but it has nothing to do with my point that "If it's secret then it can't be verified so it's not scientific."
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bill S on 11/09/2017 22:10:36
When posting in science, we all have our likes,
And value our erudite goals;
So we’d all do much better to get on our bikes
Than to stick around here feeding trolls.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2017 00:53:14
When posting in science, we all have our likes,
And value our erudite goals;
So we’d all do much better to get on our bikes
Than to stick around here feeding trolls.

I get what you're saying. Tkadm30 admitted in another thread to having been diagnosed with schizophrenia. That almost certainly contributes to his paranoia. It's very doubtful reason can prevail here. That's not meant to be an insult to you, tkadm30. Paranoia is a common symptom of schizophrenia.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 12/09/2017 09:56:03
Apparently, there have been some cloud seeding operations in Texas on august 24.

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/09/cloud-seeding-used-hurricane-harvey-amplifying-impact.html

http://wtwma.com/Daily%20Operations/TPWMA/08242017T.pdf

If theses links are dead let me know, Thanks.

Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2017 14:43:27
Apparently, there have been some cloud seeding operations in Texas on august 24.

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/09/cloud-seeding-used-hurricane-harvey-amplifying-impact.html

http://wtwma.com/Daily%20Operations/TPWMA/08242017T.pdf

If theses links are dead let me know, Thanks.

It does not say that Hurricane Harvey itself was seeded, it says a mere two clouds were seeded. Regardless, I'm not aware of any studies that have conclusively demonstrated the cloud seeding can effectively change the strength or precipitation rate of tropical cyclones. Their size would probably make it impractical.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: tkadm30 on 12/09/2017 16:17:24
It does not say that Hurricane Harvey itself was seeded, it says a mere two clouds were seeded. Regardless, I'm not aware of any studies that have conclusively demonstrated the cloud seeding can effectively change the strength or precipitation rate of tropical cyclones. Their size would probably make it impractical.

This geoengineering activity brought to you courtesy of Trans-Pecos Weather Modification Association, one day before Hurricane Harvey...

Anyways, I just do not believe in pure coincidences or in mainstream media neuropolitics about the sudden rise of superhurricanes.

This is neuropolitics in action my friend. :)

We are expected to believe in all the pseudoscientific voodoo about man-made climate change without questioning its scientific validity. The weaponization of geoengineering and the neuro-narratives of climate change are just two sides of the same coin.

@Kryptid, you are forgetting that cloud seeding is a tested and patented technology used for precipitation enhancement. A important thing we're not sure yet is whether thoses [stratospheric] aerosol injections are used for enhancing rainfall on a global level or just in Texas.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2017 20:51:21
This geoengineering activity brought to you courtesy of Trans-Pecos Weather Modification Association, one day before Hurricane Harvey...

Irrelevant. Harvey was not seeded.

Quote
Anyways, I just do not believe in pure coincidences or in mainstream media neuropolitics about the sudden rise of superhurricanes.

Belief is irrelevant in a debate. Evidence is what is relevant.

Quote
This is neuropolitics in action my friend. :)

Unsupported statement.

Quote
We are expected to believe in all the pseudoscientific voodoo about man-made climate change without questioning its scientific validity. The weaponization of geoengineering and the neuro-narratives of climate change are just two sides of the same coin.

Unsupported statement.

Quote
@Kryptid, you are forgetting that cloud seeding is a tested and patented technology used for precipitation enhancement.

I'm well aware that cloud seeding is a thing. That doesn't mean it works on hurricanes.

Quote
A important thing we're not sure yet is whether thoses [stratospheric] aerosol injections are used for enhancing rainfall on a global level or just in Texas.

There is no evidence that we have any degree of global weather control.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2017 20:55:32
We are expected to believe in all the pseudoscientific voodoo about man-made climate change without questioning its scientific validity. The weaponization of geoengineering and the neuro-narratives of climate change are just two sides of the same coin.
If you on't understand the difference then you should stop posting and learn.
Title: Re: Is Hurricane Harvey evidence of geoengineering? (NO, IT ISN'T!)
Post by: chiralSPO on 12/09/2017 21:17:16
I have decided to lock this thread. Nothing good can come of it at this point.

The consensus (with the notable exception of the original poster) is that:
• There is no evidence of "tampering" with Harvey
and
• The scientific principles involved with storm engineering are well beyond our ken, and even if we knew what we were doing, the sheer size and energy involved would dwarf our technological capabilities

None of the conspiracy theories, conjectures, or claims relating to storm engineering have any basis in scientifically established (establishable) fact, and largely depends on misrepresentation of selected and unrelated studies

Since this discussion stalled out long ago but still appears to be taking oxygen from the rest of the forum, I am locking the thread.