[Colin2B]

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. 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.

[smart (OP)]

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) ...

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

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

"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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Colin2B]

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

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.

[Kryptid]

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

Interesting operative word you have there: "may".

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.

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.

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:

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.

[smart (OP)]

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..

[smart (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

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.

[smart (OP)]

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...

[Kryptid]

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.

[smart (OP)]

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.

[Bill S]

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.   

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jeffreyH]

@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.

[Bill S]

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.

[smart (OP)]

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"?

[smart (OP)]

@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.

[Bored chemist]

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.