climateview.com, Is this new?

[solrey]

I do fully believe that all the religions of the world point to the same cataclysmic event recurring, as presented in the cornell paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5078

would love to hear your thoughts on that..

My first thought is it's not a "Cornell paper", nor are any other papers on arXiv necessarily affiliated with Cornell. The Cornell University Library simply maintains and administers an archive/repository of pre-print and unpublished research papers. The authors of the abstract/paper you linked have a handful of papers covering the same hypothesis/speculation, about what caused an asymmetric arctic ice sheet during the last ice age, that would fall into the latter category of unpublished papers. Here's a disclaimer from arXiv:

Disclaimer: Papers will be entered in the listings in order of receipt on an impartial basis and appearance of a paper is not intended in any way to convey tacit approval of its assumptions, methods, or conclusions by any agent (electronic, mechanical, or other). We reserve the right to reject any inappropriate submissions.

Neither of the authors of the paper you linked are associated with Cornell. In fact their ice age hypothesis is not necessarily within their areas of expertise either. One is a retired professor of theoretical physics at the Institute for Particle Physics in Zurich, the other is a physicist with the Brazilian Center for Physics Research. I glanced at a couple of their other papers and I doubt they'll ever get published in a peer reviewed journal. They did sneak one into some obscure Brazilian physics journal. Their hypothesis of a close approach by another planet as the cause of an apparent asymmetry of the North Hemisphere ice sheets in the last ice age is more easily explained by Milankovich cycles with global hydrologic cycles being responsible for the asymmetry of ice sheets.

I don't find a compelling argument for a recurring cataclysmic event of singular cause. I do find throughout the historic record an accounting of regional and local cataclysmic events of various kinds recurring over the ages.

In the paper in question, some of the references the paper seems to heavily rely on are the authors own previously unpublished work on arXiv, Velikovsky who is known to have mis-interpreted stuff to fit his needs, and The Epic of Gilgamesh an ancient epic poem that may have influenced Homer's epics. No wonder the authors themselves state:

In previous publications we did not mention the traditions, since a mixture could be met with distrust.

Ya think?

 

[Mick West]

I don't find a compelling argument for a recurring cataclysmic event of singular cause. I do find throughout the historic record an accounting of regional and local cataclysmic events of various kinds recurring over the ages.

Indeed, there have undoubtably been major floods, fires, earthquakes, and even fire from the sky many times and in many places over the history of civilization. No doubt had the Tunguska event of 1908 happened five thousand years ago, and nearer to civilization, then stories about that would have passed down in the oral tradition. It does not indicate recurrence, not does it indicate a planet-wide event.

Depiction of a real event:

We had a hut by the river with my brother Chekaren. We were sleeping. Suddenly we both woke up at the same time. Somebody shoved us. We heard whistling and felt strong wind. Chekaren said, 'Can you hear all those birds flying overhead?' We were both in the hut, couldn't see what was going on outside. Suddenly, I got shoved again, this time so hard I fell into the fire. I got scared. Chekaren got scared too. We started crying out for father, mother, brother, but no one answered. There was noise beyond the hut, we could hear trees falling down. Chekaren and I got out of our sleeping bags and wanted to run out, but then the thunder struck. This was the first thunder. The Earth began to move and rock, wind hit our hut and knocked it over. My body was pushed down by sticks, but my head was in the clear. Then I saw a wonder: trees were falling, the branches were on fire, it became mighty bright, how can I say this, as if there was a second sun, my eyes were hurting, I even closed them. It was like what the Russians call lightning. And immediately there was a loud thunderclap. This was the second thunder. The morning was sunny, there were no clouds, our Sun was shining brightly as usual, and suddenly there came a second one!

Chekaren and I had some difficulty getting out from under the remains of our hut. Then we saw that above, but in a different place, there was another flash, and loud thunder came. This was the third thunder strike. Wind came again, knocked us off our feet, struck against the fallen trees.

We looked at the fallen trees, watched the tree tops get snapped off, watched the fires. Suddenly Chekaren yelled 'Look up' and pointed with his hand. I looked there and saw another flash, and it made another thunder. But the noise was less than before. This was the fourth strike, like normal thunder.

Now I remember well there was also one more thunder strike, but it was small, and somewhere far away, where the Sun goes to sleep.

Content from External Source

 

[rezn8d]

excellent response, insightful

 

[rezn8d]

OK, according to the contractor, the heater should be installed by December:
http://66.39.154.121/cms/index.php/news-archive/116-arecibo-system-shipped
So,Jim, you were wrong, but will eventually be right, there will be a heater at Arecibo.

Just not a "Death Ray" like HAARP..

Get your stories together:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1455

Which is it, the heater hasn't been built yet, or it was heating before 1985?

Eastlund did NOT invent HAARP. HAARP is just an ionospheric heater research facility. Eastlund's own patent describes such ionospheric heating as having gone on well before the 1985 patent:


In recent years, a number of experiments have actually been carried out to modify the ionosphere in some controlled manner to investigate the possibility of a beneficial result. For detailed discussions of these operations see the following papers: (1) Ionospheric Modification Theory; G. Meltz and F. W. Perkins; (2) The Platteville High Power Facility; Carrol et al.; (3) Arecibo Heating Experiments; W. E. Gordon and H. C. Carlson, Jr.


for the record, the year was 1974.... http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/779548.pdf

 

[rezn8d]

this comment is just to remind you that you don't know everything, quit trolling my YouTube vids, Tim.
Arecibo was heating back in 74, and you guys really should stick to your chemtrail trolling as you know nothing about the world of space weather modification.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/779548.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RS009i011p01041/abstract

Note: also mentions Platteville, which at the time was the old HIPAS radar. Was moved to HIPAS Alaska, retired 1995. Now they have this badass Tesla coil laser driven thing up at HIPAS:
http://www.ann-geophys.net/23/101/2005/angeo-23-101-2005.pdf

"Last year, the HIPAS group was asked to consider the implementation of an inexpensive pulsed RF system that would
match the ERP of the new GW-HAARP array"

"Abstract. Interesting, “new”, very high peak-power pulsed
radio frequency (RF) antennas have been assembled at the
HIPAS Observatory (Alaska, USA) and also at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA, USA); namely, a
pair of quarter wavelength (λ/4) long cylindrical conductors
separated by a high voltage spark gap. Such a combination
can radiate multi-megawatt RF pulses whenever the spark
gap fires. The antenna at HIPAS is 53 m long (λ/2) with a
central pressurized SF6 spark gap. It is mounted 5 meters
(λ/21) above a ground plane. It radiates at 2.85 MHz. The
two antenna halves are charged to ± high voltages by a Tesla
coil. Spark gap voltages of 0.4 MV (at the instant of spark
gap closure) give peak RF currents of ∼1200A which correspond to ∼ 14 MW peak total radiated power, or ∼56 MW
of Effective Radiated Power (ERP). The RF pulse train is initially square, decaying exponentially in time with Qs of ∼50.
Two similar but smaller 80-MHz antennas were assembled
at UCLA to demonstrate their synchronization with a pulsed
laser which fired the spark gaps in the two antennas simultanoeously. These experiments show that one can anticipate a
pulsed array of laser synchronized antennas having a coherent Effective Radiated Power (ERP)>10 GW. One can even
reconsider a pulse array radiating at 1.43 MHz which corresponds to the electron gyrofrequency in the Earth’s magnetic
field at ∼200 km altitude. These “new” pulsed high power
antennas are hauntingly similar to the ones used originally
by Hertz (1857–1894) during his (1886–1889) seminal veri-
fications of Maxwell’s (1864) theory of electrodynamics

...

Last year, the HIPAS group was asked to consider the implementation of an inexpensive pulsed RF system that would
match the ERP of the new GW-HAARP array. Preliminary
analysis dismissed pulsed electron tubes as too costly, even
though HIPAS already had two 3 MW Machlett ML-7560 triodes. Pulsed ∼30 MW RF “frozen wave transmission lines”
were considered next (Weibel, 1964) (Liette, 1965) (Stephan,
Hugrass, and Jones, 1982). A twenty cycle L–C line, consisting of 60 50-kV–8 nF ($250 each) capacitors, was designed.
This approach was abandoned in favor of the simpler “frozen
voltage” generator used originally by Hertz; namely, a pair
of oppositely charged high voltage quarter wave long antennas separated by a spark gap

...

These experiments clearly showed that a coherent array of
laser triggered pulsed Hertzian radiators could be assembled
that can match or exceed the peak power of the new HAARP
system for a fraction of its cost.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Still flogging that ionospheric heater stuff disrupting the atmosphere, eh? You people have been doing that for about twenty years but have failed to get any credible scientist to agree. You can fool a bunch of paranoids ignorant of science, but can't get the ones who count to buy in. It's a losers game. Think about it......

 

[solrey]

this comment is just to remind you that you don't know everything, quit trolling my YouTube vids, Tim.

umadbro? One comment in the past month and I'm trolling? So blocking me wasn't enough, eh? Regardless, you were being totally dishonest in your presentation of that Hurricane Modification Workshop paper. And yes, I did read the entire paper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUBZD1KnxWc

Arecibo was heating back in 74, and you guys really should stick to your chemtrail trolling as you know nothing about the world of space weather modification.

The original ionospheric heater at Arecibo was destroyed by Hurricane Georges in 1998. In the past year or two, they completed the addition of a HF transmitter to the existing main dish so now they have a new ionospheric heater.

If anyone here doesn't know what they're talking about it's you, Jim.

 

[rezn8d]

umadbro? One comment in the past month and I'm trolling? So blocking me wasn't enough, eh? Regardless, you were being totally dishonest in your presentation of that Hurricane Modification Workshop paper. And yes, I did read the entire paper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUBZD1KnxWc



The original ionospheric heater at Arecibo was destroyed by Hurricane Georges in 1998. In the past year or two, they completed the addition of a HF transmitter to the existing main dish so now they have a new ionospheric heater.

If anyone here doesn't know what they're talking about it's you, Jim.

please quote me my dishonest statement in the video and tell me why you believe it is dishonest

 

[solrey]

I didn't say anything about a particular dishonest statement, you mis-represent the science in general is my point. Let's start with the title of the vid, "Bill Gates and DHS Hurricane Modification - Weather Mitigation Meets Monetization". Bill Gates had nothing to do with that workshop, nor is he collaborating with DHS or NOAA, afaik. He does have an interest in hurricane mitigation, but so do a lot of people. But hey, mention Bill Gates, DHS and NOAA in the same sentence and you've got yourself a conspiracy trifecta!

You go through the list of limited scale field tests as if they are being done, but you conveniently skipped over the qualifying sentence before the broader bulleted list that says; "The following areas were suggested for further investigation:". So that list of field tests were SUGGESTIONS, not experiments that have actually been carried out. Even the ion generators and cloud seeding currently in use have nothing to do with hurricane modification experiments.

You show a page from your website with a list of ongoing geoengineering experiments but THERE ARE NO ONGOING GEOENGINEERING EXPERIMENTS TAKING PLACE. At most there are IDEAS that are being investigated through computer modeling and limited lab experiments. You claim there are boats for the proposed "silver lining" project but they haven't been built yet, if they ever will. You claim that "David Keith is going to be doing an experiment down in Arizona real soon spraying the sky there", however that was an erroneous report that David himself debunked. And it was New Mexico so you even go that wrong even though you have an article about it on your own website.

In summary, we have been and are currently exploring possible new strategies for interrogating the stratospheric system without affecting the background stratosphere in any quantitative way. To date, we have not written any proposal to actually do so. We want to be absolutely clear that that we have no plans to implement a geoengineering field study to release “thousands of tonnes of sun-reflecting chemical particles into the atmosphere to artificially cool the planet, using a balloon flying 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico.”

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/response-to-guardian-article

You also fail to mention that the scientists studying geo-engineering say we don't know enough about the climate system in general, or any particular kind of weather system, to even begin large scale experiments let alone full implementation.

Addendum:

After that workshop, NOAA later declined a request to work with DHS on hurricane mitigation, emphasizing their mission to mitigate damage by providing more accurate hurricane forecasts.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/noaa_letter_dhs_hurricane_modification.pdf

While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes.

When speaking of weather modification, he's talking about your run of the mill cloud seeding operations. If you were giving an honest presentation of the information you would have included the well known fact that NOAA does not support, nor participate in, modifying hurricanes. You totally ignore any information contrary to your claims, that's dishonest.

 

[Jay_Bee]

In the days after 9-11, the absence of jets in the sky was rather remarkable. I believe that there was a bit of observational evidence gathered from that sudden cessation of air traffic across the US. Certainly, aerosols and particulates are important to the atmospheric energy balance. These sorts of general ideas are well proven, and seem to me to be quite different from the typical chemtrail discussion, which focuses on the hypothetical intentional addition of various chemicals to airplane exhaust for a various hypothetical reasons.

Some random thoughts on the discussion: 1) when CO2 increases, the atmosphere heats 'from the top down.' It would be wrong to say that less light reaching the Earth's surface equals any sort of cooling.
2) oceanic acidification is clearly linked to sulfur from burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. It also comes from CO2 dissociating into carbonic acid in solution with water. Nitrogen oxides are also a factor. I have not seen any clear evidence that some other minor ingredients that might (or might not) be present in airplanes are thought to be significant players.

 

[HappyMonday]

Just had Jim post me a link uninvited on Twitter to the following address, which is apparently one of his -

http://www.terraforminginc.com/climate-engineering-exposed/

He had a bit of a rant at me when I posted a link to this thread alongside this new one. He's obviously working hard on his credibility, and is really touchy about metabunk and some of it's users.

 

[Mick West]

Jim's 1-month ban for excessive impoliteness will be up tomorrow afternoon.

 

[Joe]

Jim's 1-month ban for excessive impoliteness will be up tomorrow afternoon.

I was the one who gave him the link to Geoengineering Google Groups .

 

[HappyMonday]

Jim's 1-month ban for excessive impoliteness will be up tomorrow afternoon.

It was fairly impolite on Twitter, on my part too. Not my finest hour.

Still, that's what you get for spamming links I guess.

 

[rezn8d]

I was the one who gave him the link to Geoengineering Google Groups .

Thanks for that, greatly appreciated

 

[rezn8d]

It was fairly impolite on Twitter, on my part too. Not my finest hour.

Still, that's what you get for spamming links I guess.

Mine either, my apologies, I tend to rage on people who label me a fraud because that stuff lingers...

 

[Joe]

Thanks for that, greatly appreciated

Your welcome

 

[HappyMonday]

Mine either, my apologies, I tend to rage on people who label me a fraud because that stuff lingers...

It's easy to fire off something misleading on Twitter, it's a terrible medium for making your point. In this case, it was fair criticism that this thread doesn't deal with the link you posted, which I retweeted.

I know you don't agree that "some of your claims" have been debunked in this thread, but from where I was standing when I read through this thread, they have.

Personally, I'm interested in the chemtrails and moon landing hoaxes at the moment, so I'm not going to debate your work with you. There are better people for that here than me. As such, it was actually fair to point out that I know next to nothing about your subject.

I continue to follow this thread with interest however, and it's all good promo.

 

[rezn8d]

No Jim, you're the one who is mistaken. Incoherent scatter radar does not heat the ionosphere. It works the same as any radar except the return signal is reflected by electrons and ions instead of solid targets. Ionospheric heaters work because the frequencies used are absorbed by free electrons thus there is no return signal. Incoherent scatter radars would not work at those frequencies because they're absorbed, not reflected. One of the primary goals of ISR is to measure the naturally fluctuating temperature of electrons in the ionosphere so if they were heating them artificially that would pretty much defeat the purpose of ISR now wouldn't it?

ISR operates in the UHF range transmitting at around 430 MHz, ionospheric heaters operate in the HF range transmitting at 2 - 10 MHz.

Arecibo also uses radar to study near earth asteroids.

At this time I take great pleasure in CORRECTING Tim, Jay, and the rest:

Arecibo's heater and Barium, Lithium, and Sulfur Hexaflouride releases from the CRRES satellite:



http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA293219

[h=5]AA-2: HF Ionospheric Modification of Barium Plasma. Principal Investigators: Frank T. Djuth, The Aerospace Corporation; Lewis M. Duncan, Clemson University.[/h] The Arecibo High-Frequency Radio Ionospheric Heater can beam powerful radio waves into the ionosphere. These radio waves, with millions of watts of effective power, can "push the ionosphere around" and create significant perturbations and structures.

In this experiment, a heavy barium plasma will replace the natural light ionosphere plasma (normally hydrogen and oxygen) in the beam of the radio wave heater. The heater beam will be turned on the heavy plasma and scientists can see its response to the perturbations and compare the results to heater experiments with the natural ionosphere.

Content from External Source

http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/plasma-wave/crres/press-kit/detailed-experiments.html

CRRES Program Experiments Release Release Experiment no. Chemical Location Altitude Period ____________________________________________________________________________________ SATELLITE EXPERIMENTS Critical Velocity Critical Velocity G-13 Strontium Am. Samoa 270-360 mi. Sept. 1990 Ionization Barium G-14 Calcium Am. Samoa 270-360 mi. Sept. 1990 Barium High-Altitude Magnetospheric Diagmagnetic Cavity, G-1 Barium N. America 1.3 Re* Jan-Feb 1991 Plasma Coupling G-2 Barium N. America 1.8 Re Jan-Feb 1991 G-3 Barium N. America 3.5 Jan-Feb 1991 G-4 Barium N. America 5.5 Jan-Feb 1991 Stimulated Electron/ G-5 Lithium N. America >6.0 Re Jan-Feb 1991 Aurora Production Stimulated Ion- G-6 Lithium N.America >6.0 Re Jan-Feb 1991 Cyclotron Waves and Ion Precip. Ion Tracing G-7 Lithium N. America >6.0 Re Jan-Feb 1991 and Acceleration Velocity Distribution G-9 Barium Caribbean June-July 1991 Relaxation Caribbean Perigee Grav. Instability G-8 Barium Caribbean 270-480 mi. June-July 1991 Field Equipotentiality Field Line G-10 Barium Caribbean 270-480 mi June-July 1991 Tracing and G-11 Barium Caribbean 270-480 mi June-July 1991 Equipotentiality G-11A Barium Caribbean 270-480 mi June-July 1991 G-12 Barium Caribbean 270-480 mi June-July 1991 G-12A Barium Caribbean 270-480 mi June-July 1991 *Re=Earth radii CRRES PROGRAM EXPERIMENTS Release Release Experiment no. Chemical Location Altitude Period __________________________________________________________________________________ SOUNDING ROCKET EXPERIMENTS Kwajalein Equatorial AA-5 SF6* Kwajalein 240 mi Jul.-Aug. 1990 Instability Seeding AA-6A SF6 Kwajalein 150 mi Jul.-Aug. 1990 AA-6B SF6 Kwajalein 150 mi Jul.-Aug. 1990 Puerto Rican Rockets F-Region AA-1 Barium Puerto Rico 150 mi June-July 1991 Irregularity Evolution HF Ionospheric AA-2 Barium Puerto Rico 150 mi June-July 1991 Modification of a Barium Plasma E-Region AA-7 Barium Puerto Rico 150 mi June-July 1991 Image Formation HF-Induced Ion AA-3 Barium Puerto Rico 90-240 mi June-July 1991 Striation/Differential Barium Puerto Rico 90-240 mi June-July 1991 Ion Expansion Barium Puerto Rico 90-240 mi June-July 1991 SF6 Puerto Rico 90-240 mi June-July 1991 Ionospeheric AA-4 SF6 Puerto Rico 210-240 mi June-July 1991 Focused Heating *SF6=Sulfur hexafluoride

Content from External Source

http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/plasma-wave/crres/press-kit/detailed-experiments.html

Let this be a reminder, your debunks come with the limitation of your knowledge

 

[Ross Marsden]

Ok, this isn't my area of detailed knowledge, so I'm very happy to be corrected. But I can read and stuff.

It's pretty clear even in the abstract of that paper that the Arecibo incoherent scatter radar is being used there to make some of the observations, and not for the heating. The heating had been done for a considerable period before this experiment, and was an experiment in its own right.

Here is the first two paragraphs of the abstract to explain "in person":

The Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) Puerto Rico experiments carried out during June and July 1992, provided an opportunity to observe the dynamics and evolution of high-altitude chemical releases at middle latitudes. Among the experiments that were conducted for the program, three large barium payloads were released into the dawn F region—two into the natural ionosphere and one into an ionosphere modified by HF heating. Extended periods of HF modification prior to the rocket launches also provided an opportunity to study heating effects, per se. This report reviews some preliminary results from three participating instruments:
• ion-line mapping made by the Arecibo incoherent scatter radar
• HF backscatter characterization and tracking of the barium cloud
• transionospheric propagation diagnosis of large and medium scale structure produced by heating and the barium releases.

The primary purpose of the incoherent scatter ion-line system at the Arecibo Observatory was to determine the suitability of ionospheric conditions for rocket launch, and to provide precise measurement of the barium cloud location and dynamics. Analysis of the incoherent scatter returns from the barium cloud has provided estimates of its temperature, composition, and motion. Velocity shears that may indicate rotation of the edges of the plasma cloud are observed.

rezn8d says, "Let this be a reminder, your debunks come with the limitation of your knowledge."
It also comes with the limitation of our ability to read and comprehend.

 

[solrey]

At this time I take great pleasure in CORRECTING Tim, Jay, and the rest:

Just in case you did not understand what I meant about incoherent scatter radar, allow me to clarify something I wrote about ISR by highlighting in brackets what I meant by "them" and "they" within the context of the sentence.

solrey said:
One of the primary goals of ISR is to measure the naturally fluctuating temperature of electrons in the ionosphere so if they(ISR) were heating them(electrons) artificially that would pretty much defeat the purpose of ISR now wouldn't it?

To be perfectly clear, if ISR were heating electrons in the ionosphere it would defeat the purpose of using ISR as a tool to analyze the effects of ionospheric heating by HF transmitters. The two are used in conjunction, the HF transmitter heats electrons in the ionosphere while the incoherent scatter radar analyzes the effects to the radars return signal. The ISR is mostly utilized to monitor the natural ionosphere to provide a baseline by which to compare against experiments, but it is also used as a diagnostic tool to help analyze the effects of the experiments.

What you did there Jim, by your inability to comprehend all of the above, is CONFIRM what we've been saying about incoherent scatter radar as stated in the abstract of the very paper you cite!

The primary purpose of the incoherent scatter ion-line system at the Arecibo Observatory was to determine the suitability of ionospheric conditions for rocket launch, and to provide precise measurement of the barium cloud location and dynamics.

Content from External Source

The suitable ionospheric conditions mentioned in the abstract are when the ionosphere is quiet and stable, otherwise the effects of electron heating by HF transmission would get lost in the "noise" of natural perturbations.

rezn8d said:
...and you guys really should stick to your chemtrail trolling as you know nothing about the world of space weather modification.
[..]
Let this be a reminder, your debunks come with the limitation of your knowledge

I'll let you in on a little secret to save yourself further embarrassment... my education in aerospace technology and atmospheric sciences included learning about the ionosphere and "space weather". I also have on the back-burner a mostly finished scientific paper applying the drift-Alfven model for a magnetized plasma to the hexagonal vortex above Saturn's north pole. I don't quite have the computing power to crunch out a simulation using coupled partial differential equations and I have a full life that takes priority, but I hope to finish it someday.

So while I'm feeling generous I suppose I should thank you Jim... for demonstrating exactly who actually knows nothing about the world of space weather modification.

cheers

 

[rezn8d]

Just in case you did not understand what I meant about incoherent scatter radar, allow me to clarify something I wrote about ISR by highlighting in brackets what I meant by "them" and "they" within the context of the sentence.



To be perfectly clear, if ISR were heating electrons in the ionosphere it would defeat the purpose of using ISR as a tool to analyze the effects of ionospheric heating by HF transmitters. The two are used in conjunction, the HF transmitter heats electrons in the ionosphere while the incoherent scatter radar analyzes the effects to the radars return signal. The ISR is mostly utilized to monitor the natural ionosphere to provide a baseline by which to compare against experiments, but it is also used as a diagnostic tool to help analyze the effects of the experiments.

What you did there Jim, by your inability to comprehend all of the above, is CONFIRM what we've been saying about incoherent scatter radar as stated in the abstract of the very paper you cite!

The primary purpose of the incoherent scatter ion-line system at the Arecibo Observatory was to determine the suitability of ionospheric conditions for rocket launch, and to provide precise measurement of the barium cloud location and dynamics.

Content from External Source

The suitable ionospheric conditions mentioned in the abstract are when the ionosphere is quiet and stable, otherwise the effects of electron heating by HF transmission would get lost in the "noise" of natural perturbations.



I'll let you in on a little secret to save yourself further embarrassment... my education in aerospace technology and atmospheric sciences included learning about the ionosphere and "space weather". I also have on the back-burner a mostly finished scientific paper applying the drift-Alfven model for a magnetized plasma to the hexagonal vortex above Saturn's north pole. I don't quite have the computing power to crunch out a simulation using coupled partial differential equations and I have a full life that takes priority, but I hope to finish it someday.

So while I'm feeling generous I suppose I should thank you Jim... for demonstrating exactly who actually knows nothing about the world of space weather modification.

cheers

Space techniques using sounding rockets, satellites and space
probes made it possible to send instruments into space not
only to measure the physical parameters of the surrounding
atmosphere but also to carry out experiments in order to
learn about matter and fields in space.
When injecting barium clouds into space, both measure-
ment and experimentation occurs. The barium can be used
to trace the movement of atmospheric plasma and thus to
measure the electric fields. This is only valid if the artificial

plasma cloud does not disturb the surrounding atmosphere
too much. By injecting a stronger cloud, it is possible to

study the active interaction with the surrounding magnetic
field. In this way, one might study interesting general phe-
nomena of a plasma. Experimentation occurs if the pressure

of the artificial plasma is much stronger than the pressure
of the magnetic field in space.
Experiments with artificial plasma clouds have provided
new possibilities for studying the plasma under conditions
that cannot be easily set up or may even be impossible to
realise in a laboratory.
These experiments are comparable to methods of observ-
ing the velocity of a homogeneous fluid. A typical method
involves spreading some coloured particles or metallic dust
into the fluid. Normally, one uses only very small amounts
in order not to disturb the behaviour of the fluid. More than

90 per cent of the cosmic objects are in a plasma state, but
are also very dilute and therefore not visible except where
concentrated in stars. The cosmic plasma consists mainly of
ionized hydrogen and helium molecules which have an
extremely small cross section for light-scattering and so,
like the even smaller electrons, do not scatter enough light to
make their presence visible.
Therefore, it would be interesting to inject into a cosmic
plasma a suitable material that with has a cross section large
enough for light-scattering to make the motion of cosmic
plasma visible. For a plasma with very high electrical conduc-
tivity, this is of particular interest, since every motion perpen-
dicular to the magnetic field lines of force can be described as
the motion of the magnetic lines force. H. Alfvén used the

image of magnetic lines of force frozen the plasma

Content from External Source

http://saive.com/WXMOD/Barium_cloud_experiments_in_the_Upper_Atmosphere.pdf

Don't talk down to me.

The Arecibo High-Frequency Radio Ionospheric Heater can beam powerful radio waves into the ionosphere. These radio waves, with millions of watts of effective power, can "push the ionosphere around" and create significant perturbations and structures.

The heater beam will be turned on the heavy plasma and scientists can see its response to the perturbations and compare the results to heater experiments with the natural ionosphere.

Content from External Source

http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu/plasma-wave/crres/press-kit/detailed-experiments.html

[h=2]per·turb[/h] transitive verb \pər-ˈtərb\


[h=2]Definition of PERTURB[/h]1
: to cause to be worried or upset : disquiet


2
: to throw into confusion : disorder

3
: to cause to experience a perturbation

Content from External Source

Can we agree that in plain english, a chemical release was heated (even if it was slightly) by a radar and they "perturbed" or upset or modified part of the ionosphere. Therefore... heaters like HAARP are modifying the climate.

• uses the Ionospheric Research Instrument (3-30 MHz) to heat a column of the sky using a 5.1 GW signal, and a second signal to hold the plasma cloud in place, like the AMISR or HIPAS, which creates an “Artifical Ionospheric Mirror” which is used to reflect radio frequency transmissions over the horizon.
• creates plasma clouds, which follows the long history of magnetospheric modification
  
  Heavy ion plasma clouds (Barium, Cesium) Injection of accelerated particles (shaped Ba charges, accelerated electrons) Injection of ULF, VLF, MF and HF waves, Light ion plasma clouds in the magnetosphere
  ​
• induces airglow using HF radio waves
• modifies the magnetic properties of our planet to search for nukes under Iran and China
• is part of DARPA’s Project NIMBUS campaign BRIOCHE.

Content from External Source

http://www.terraforminginc.com/haarp/

Good enough for Ken Caldeira, cause he gets it, why don't you?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/h6yLe4D3AXk/5AsiHm-pz5AJ

 

[Mick West]

Jim, I think it would be useful if you actually state what it is you claim, and/or what correction you are making, as I can't quite figure it out from the posts above. And your final excerpt was not helpful.

 

[rezn8d]

Jim, I think it would be useful if you actually state what it is you claim, and/or what correction you are making, as I can't quite figure it out from the posts above. And your final excerpt was not helpful.

Argus, Hardtack, and Starfish Prime started it, Heavy Ion Barium clouds came after the Limited Test Ban Treaty to circumvent it, followed by electron injection from sounding rockets and heating from radars. HAARP, Tromso, Sura, HIPAS and other heaters in concert with rocket ranges like Poker Flats and Andoya are used to modify the ionosphere. Further, chemical releases are not necessary to perturb or modify the ionosphere, magnetosphere, and underlying structures.

Refer to:

New Concepts in Ionospheric Modification - Stanford Star Lab 1987

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA199181

which lead to the birth of HAARP:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/133031163...cial-Ionospheric-Mirror-AIM-Related-Phenomena

http://www.scribd.com/doc/133031880...nt-Services-Program-Plans-and-Activities-1990

and just one reference to particle beams on sounding rockets (which burn aluminum fuel)
[h=1]
Particle simulations of relativistic electron beam injection from spacecraft
[/h]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JA900102/abstract


First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

That is the "first" link they have found, we all know more will follow. You cannot modify the ionosphere and magnetosphere and expect nothing will happen below. Don't get me started on the ozone hole lie.... chemical releases and nuclear explosions are to blame.

Therefore in a nutshell, HAARP modifies the weather, period. Space Weather Modification, Plasma Seeding, Christofilos Effect add up to HAARP modifies the climate.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I think he is trying to dispute a post made by solrey last September. Jim is a stubborn die-hard, but not having much success at the task he's set on.

 

[Mick West]

First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

That is the "first" link they have found, we all know more will follow. You cannot modify the ionosphere and magnetosphere and expect nothing will happen below. Don't get me started on the ozone hole lie.... chemical releases and nuclear explosions are to blame.

Therefore in a nutshell, HAARP modifies the weather, period. Space Weather Modification, Plasma Seeding, Christofilos Effect add up to HAARP modifies the climate.

There's a huge leap there: "You cannot modify the ionosphere and magnetosphere and expect nothing will happen below." Where in any of your sources is this backed up? Your nasa link says just that thunderstorms affect the ionosphere, not the other way around.

And what was it that you were correcting in post #99?

At this time I take great pleasure in CORRECTING Tim, Jay, and the rest:

 

[Met Watch]

I think he is trying to dispute a post made by solrey last September. Jim is a stubborn die-hard, but not having much success at the task he's set on.

I'm still waiting on a plausible explanation from him on how Sandy's path was controlled by man.

 

[solrey]

That is the "first" link they have found, we all know more will follow. You cannot modify the ionosphere and magnetosphere and expect nothing will happen below. Don't get me started on the ozone hole lie.... chemical releases and nuclear explosions are to blame.

Therefore in a nutshell, HAARP modifies the weather, period. Space Weather Modification, Plasma Seeding, Christofilos Effect add up to HAARP modifies the climate.

As Mick noted, the "link" between thunderstorms and the ionosphere is from an indirect effect caused by strong convective air masses bumping against the bottom of the E-layer like a lid on a pot of boiling water. The perturbations to the E-layer actually disrupt the plasma currents embedded within that layer. It's strictly a bottom-up, not top-down, dynamic.

The connection to plasma bands in the ionosphere surprised scientists at first because these tides from the thunderstorms can not affect the ionosphere directly. The gas in the ionosphere is simply too thin. Earth's gravity keeps most of the atmosphere close to the surface. Thunderstorms develop in the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, which extends almost 10 miles above the equator. The gas in the plasma bands is about 10 billion times less dense than in the troposphere. The tide needs to collide with atoms in the atmosphere above to propagate, but the ionosphere where the plasma bands form is so thin, atoms rarely collide there.

Content from External Source

rezn8d wrote:
Can we agree that in plain english, a chemical release was heated (even if it was slightly) by a radar and they "perturbed" or upset or modified part of the ionosphere. Therefore... heaters like HAARP are modifying the climate.

I've never disputed the fact that scientists perform experiments in the ionosphere by transmitting HF radio waves and analyzing the effects with a number of instruments, one of which is radar. What you apparently fail to understand, Jim, is that radar is a system and it has a specific purpose for which the frequencies used are unsuitable for the task of heating the ionosphere. A specific frequency range in the HF band is used by specialized transmitters to heat the ionosphere. Different frequency ranges are utilized by different radar systems for the task of RAdio Detection And Ranging of their designated "targets". You seem to be stuck on confusing and conflating the concept of radar with specialized HF transmitters. They are completely different systems used for their respective different tasks. There is no evidence whatsoever in the scientific literature that weather of any sort anywhere has been altered by artificial perturbations in the ionosphere, nor have any of the experiments on the ionosphere had the goal of achieving that purpose. It's your own mis-understandings that are leading you to erroneous conclusions.

 

[rezn8d]

There's a huge leap there: "You cannot modify the ionosphere and magnetosphere and expect nothing will happen below." Where in any of your sources is this backed up? Your nasa link says just that thunderstorms affect the ionosphere, not the other way around.

And what was it that you were correcting in post #99?

All you are is a cherry-picker and a perception manager, Mick.

Does it trouble you that despite your intent to set the record straight, none of the conspiracy guys will listen to you? It's because you are standoffish, and every post is a mini-battle you intend to win. You alienate those you wish to exert change on, and repeat the insanity on the next fool. As a result your community has a deserved reputation.

The most telling thing for me is your complete lack of surprise when I link these articles. Barium and Cesium releases in the upper atmosphere? We're cool with that. Microwaves altering the magnetic protective shield of our planet? We know all about it, and in fact we like it. Sounding rockets dumping aluminum and sulfuric acid burning holes in the ozone layer and ripping open the ionosphere? Yup, in fact we have pictures....

So I ask you this:

Do you believe that nature should not be dramatically altered?
Do you believe that man has done well in the past when given the chance to make great changes to the environment?
Do you believe that a joint Air Force/Navy electron gun (HAARP, HIPAS, and AMISR) and Poker Flats are experimenting in our upper atmosphere, following in lockstep with Argus, Hardtack, Starfish Prime, Project K (Russia) and the the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and that there are no laws governing what they are doing right now.... save ENMOD and the Convention for Biological Diversity.

and finally

Since you probably don't read Russian or Chinese, do you think we know the first damn thing about what "they" are doing when we can barely get a straight answer about what "we" are doing?

This is the gravest problem our world currently faces:

Carbon taxes and climate change hogwash abounds, and not once has all the weather modification (space and terrestrial) been considered for a causal relationship

Whilst geoengineers are passing international laws and experimenting, guys like you tell half-truths and mitigate the seriousness of what is going on here. For shame.

I believe what Dr. James Lee believes:

The Regulation of Geoengineering - Science and Technology Committee Contents
Memorandum submitted by Dr James Lee | Link
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
There needs to be a better understanding of the modes for cloud seeding and its impacts. A beginning point would be a multilateral registry of cloud seeding events with information and data collection on key characteristics.

​

Only I would take it a step further and include plasma seeding which causes "electron precipitation" just as cloud-seeding produces "rainfall precipitation", which NOONE is talking about.

Nobody even knows how many hands are in the cookie jar.... yet your community doesn't ask questions, you make statements, and they are beginning to make little sense, that is, if you have a heart.

 

[Mick West]

You claim that HAARP alters the weather, then you fail to back that up with any evidence.

Now you are simply attacking the tone of my posts.



Please stick to the facts, back up your claims, or leave.

 

[rezn8d]

As Mick noted, the "link" between thunderstorms and the ionosphere is from an indirect effect caused by strong convective air masses bumping against the bottom of the E-layer like a lid on a pot of boiling water. The perturbations to the E-layer actually disrupt the plasma currents embedded within that layer. It's strictly a bottom-up, not top-down, dynamic.

The connection to plasma bands in the ionosphere surprised scientists at first because these tides from the thunderstorms can not affect the ionosphere directly. The gas in the ionosphere is simply too thin. Earth's gravity keeps most of the atmosphere close to the surface. Thunderstorms develop in the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, which extends almost 10 miles above the equator. The gas in the plasma bands is about 10 billion times less dense than in the troposphere. The tide needs to collide with atoms in the atmosphere above to propagate, but the ionosphere where the plasma bands form is so thin, atoms rarely collide there.

Content from External Source

And what effect does altering the magnetic field lines have on subsurface rock structures?
[h=1]Theory of ground surface plasma wave associated with pre-earthquake electrical charges[/h]
I've never disputed the fact that scientists perform experiments in the ionosphere by transmitting HF radio waves and analyzing the effects with a number of instruments, one of which is radar. What you apparently fail to understand, Jim, is that radar is a system and it has a specific purpose for which the frequencies used are unsuitable for the task of heating the ionosphere. A specific frequency range in the HF band is used by specialized transmitters to heat the ionosphere. Different frequency ranges are utilized by different radar systems for the task of RAdio Detection And Ranging of their designated "targets". You seem to be stuck on confusing and conflating the concept of radar with specialized HF transmitters. They are completely different systems used for their respective different tasks. There is no evidence whatsoever in the scientific literature that weather of any sort anywhere has been altered by artificial perturbations in the ionosphere, nor have any of the experiments on the ionosphere had the goal of achieving that purpose. It's your own mis-understandings that are leading you to erroneous conclusions.

HAARP's Ionospheric Research Instrument operates from 3-30 MHz, 3.6 Megawatt, with an ERP of 5.1 GWs and can be used as a radar and is the "heating element", with the MUIR radar holding the plasma in place, making the artificial ionospheric mirror. HAARP, MUIR, AMISR, HIPAS, and SuperDARN are all used in conjunction with Poker Flats.

 

[rezn8d]

You claim that HAARP alters the weather, then you fail to back that up with any evidence.

Now you are simply attacking the tone of my posts.



Please stick to the facts, back up your claims, or leave.

That was not a response, that was a dodge. Not answering my questions Michael?

 

[Mick West]

All you are is a cherry-picker and a perception manager, Mick.

No, I'm a debunker. I look for bunk, and then I expose it.

Does it trouble you that despite your intent to set the record straight, none of the conspiracy guys will listen to you? It's because you are standoffish, and every post is a mini-battle you intend to win. You alienate those you wish to exert change on, and repeat the insanity on the next fool. As a result your community has a deserved reputation.

But they do listen. Yes it bothers me that some people reject whatever I say, no matter how I say it. But lots of people don't.

The most telling thing for me is your complete lack of surprise when I link these articles. Barium and Cesium releases in the upper atmosphere? We're cool with that. Microwaves altering the magnetic protective shield of our planet? We know all about it, and in fact we like it. Sounding rockets dumping aluminum and sulfuric acid burning holes in the ozone layer and ripping open the ionosphere? Yup, in fact we have pictures....

Why would I be surprised about something I already know about?

So I ask you this:

Do you believe that nature should not be dramatically altered?

You need to be more specific. Nature HAS been dramatically altered, I mean my house is a dramatic alteration of the nature of this plot of land. I don't think there should be global alterations of the climate or any level of the atmosphere if we can help it. It seems too risky.

Do you believe that man has done well in the past when given the chance to make great changes to the environment?

Like what? Obviously there is a lot of pollution and excessive CO2 levels, but what does "given the chance" mean? Who is "man"?

Do you believe that a joint Air Force/Navy electron gun (HAARP, HIPAS, and AMISR) and Poker Flats are experimenting in our upper atmosphere, following in lockstep with Argus, Hardtack, Starfish Prime, Project K (Russia) and the the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and that there are no laws governing what they are doing right now.... save ENMOD and the Convention for Biological Diversity.

I believe HAARP is experimenting as they describe it. I don't know about laws governing HAARP.

and finally

Since you probably don't read Russian or Chinese, do you think we know the first damn thing about what "they" are doing when we can barely get a straight answer about what "we" are doing?

I've not heard anyone present evidence they are doing anything.

This is the gravest problem our world currently faces:

Climate change is the gravest problem. Asteroid impact is probably up there too, but more random. HAARP is not.

Carbon taxes and climate change hogwash abounds, and not once has all the weather modification (space and terrestrial) been considered for a causal relationship

Because there's no evidence. Cloud seeding is minute in scope. Space weather has basically zero impact on terrestrial weather.

Whilst geoengineers are passing international laws and experimenting, guys like you tell half-truths and mitigate the seriousness of what is going on here. For shame.

I'm debunking.

I believe what Dr. James Lee believes:

The Regulation of Geoengineering - Science and Technology Committee Contents
Memorandum submitted by Dr James Lee | Link
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
There needs to be a better understanding of the modes for cloud seeding and its impacts. A beginning point would be a multilateral registry of cloud seeding events with information and data collection on key characteristics​

​

He says that because his area of concern is armed conflict resulting from climate change. He's concerned that cloud seeding might lead to cross-border disputes.

Only I would take it a step further and include plasma seeding which causes "electron precipitation" just as cloud-seeding produces "rainfall precipitation", which NOONE is talking about.

So why are you talking about it?

Nobody even knows how many hands are in the cookie jar.... yet your community doesn't ask questions, you make statements, and they are beginning to make little sense, that is, if you have a heart.

I'm debunking. I'm not pushing a position. If I see something that is incorrect, then I'll say so.

 

[Mick West]

That was not a response, that was a dodge. Not answering my questions Michael?

I've answered your questions. Now I'd appreciate it if you please be polite, and stick to the top of the pyramid.

Michael is my given name, but I go by Mick, so I'd appreciate if you use Mick to avoid confusion.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The biggest disagreement I have with Jim's stuff is that he sensationalizes and stretches very small things way out of proportion.
Boy cries wolf chicken little sort of stuff. That sort of thing has a limited lifespan, it dies a natural death over time for most people, except for newcomers and those who can't turn back. Like the chemtrails hoax, where will Dane Wigington be five, ten, fifteen years from now?

Nick Begich began haarping back in the early 1990s. His book was published in 1997, FIFTEEN YEARS ago. Now selling for 1/2 price!
He established the whole CT, but failed to get any qualified peopleto follow him down the hole.
Where's the Beef, Jim?

Where is the real evidence that haarp has done anything other than what they publicize?
Haarpstatus.com?

Where's the Beef?

 

[Joe]

Mick You said " Climate change is the gravest problem. Asteroid impact is probably up there too, but more random. HAARP is not." Do you not think that a Nuclear war would be the gravest problem and more of a direct threat then CG or Asteroid ?? and what would be the effects to the climate ?

 

[Mick West]

Mick You said " Climate change is the gravest problem. Asteroid impact is probably up there too, but more random. HAARP is not." Do you not think that a Nuclear war would be the gravest problem and more of a direct threat then CG or Asteroid ?? and what would be the effects to the climate ?

It's up there, a full scale nuclear war seems very unlikely, limited exchanges are possible, a terrorist nuke is possible. There's other things like earthquakes, mega-tsunamis, and pandemics.

The thing about an asteroid impact is that it has the possibility of wiping out ALL human life,. So even though it's less likely, the outcome is far worse than climate change, and even a full scale nuclear exchange with nuclear winter (there would still be humans). And large asteroids WILL hit the earth in the future (unless we do something about it).

You can't really put these things on the same scale, there are multiple variables. A mega-tsunami on the east coast could kill millions in minutes. A pandemic might kill hundreds of millions in years. Climate change might kill billions in decades. Asteroid impact might kill everyone in five minutes.

 

[Joe]

It's up there, a full scale nuclear war seems very unlikely, limited exchanges are possible, a terrorist nuke is possible. There's other things like earthquakes, mega-tsunamis, and pandemics.

The thing about an asteroid impact is that it has the possibility of wiping out ALL human life,. So even though it's less likely, the outcome is far worse than climate change, and even a full scale nuclear exchange with nuclear winter (there would still be humans). And large asteroids WILL hit the earth in the future (unless we do something about it).

You can't really put these things on the same scale, there are multiple variables. A mega-tsunami on the east coast could kill millions in minutes. A pandemic might kill hundreds of millions in years. Climate change might kill billions in decades. Asteroid impact might kill everyone in five minutes.

Ill Take the asteroid then seems we wont suffer as much .

 

[Mick West]

Ill Take the asteroid then seems we wont suffer as much .

I'd take the others. At least you have options.

 

[scombrid]

Jim, Do you know what a gravity wave between fluids of different densities is?

You seem to think that electromagnetism is causing the ripples in the stratus clouds downwind of that island. Can you explain how that is even possible?

The reality is that the waves downwind of that island are most analogous to a ship's wake causing gravity waves on the surface of the sea. The island sticks up just high enough to disrupt the thermocline at the top of the stable cold marine layer.