Contrails, Gravity Waves, and HAARP

[Ross Marsden]

...

Importance of Gravity Waves

Even only fifteen years ago, many scientists regarded gravity waves as simply idle curiosities. Many people considered that they had no real impact on atmospheric motions at any sort of important scale.This attitude has now changed.

Gravity waves carry momentum and energy between different points in the atmosphere. If a gravity wave is generated at a source region (e.g. a mountain) and dissipates somewhere else, this amounts to a transfer of energy and momentum from the first point to the second. When energy and momentum are deposited in the dissipation region, they can alter the mean flow. Meteorologists have realized in the last decade that computer models are not always very good at predicting mean winds, or making good forecasts, and they have now realized that part of the reason for this is that they had not been including gravity wave generation and dissipation in their models. A considerable amount of effort is being turned towards proper parametrization of gravity waves in meteorological models.

In the upper regions of the atmosphere, especially the stratosphere and mesosphere, gravity waves have huge effects. For example, in the mesosphere it has been found that by including gravity waves in computer models, the directions of the winds have in some cases even been reversed relative to the expected wind directions deduced without inclusion of gravity waves! The values deduced with gravity waves included agree better with observations than do the older predictions.

From; http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~whocking/p103/grav_wav.html

...

Bryan

You have quoted those paragraphs (emphasis here is mine) several times as if they are really, really, really important for the claim you are making.

They are more about the importance of including gravity wave processes in numerical weather prediction (computer models) to get better results, than about the importance of gravity waves per se.

 

[electrojet]

Hi Ross,

A very good point. The emphasis is clearly on overall including gravity waves in the computer models and not focused on any moderation of gravity wave processes.

To go another step forward, the relationship between the mean flow (mean winds) and gravity waves should be further examined in order to arrive at a better understanding of weather dynamics.

Also it must be considered that gravity waves may not be directly linked to Earth weather. Instead there is a dynamic coupling that has multiple steps that requires examination.

The relationship to be further explored is gravity waves>mean flow/mean winds>hadley circulation or other such as gravity waves>mean winds>meridional circulation.

There is also a need to understand the electrojet and it's dynamic link to earth weather.

View attachment 3150View attachment 3150

plasma bands http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/154188main_plasma_bands_lgweb.jpg

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Unlike water waves, which displace the water up and down, planetary waves displace air north and south as they travel around our planet. They form in the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) and propagate upward, transferring their energy to the stratosphere.

Electrojet, an analogy that might work for you is that if you blow up and release A BALLOON above the surface of the sea, you do not get a depression in the sea beneath. The sea has a higher density, and remains unaffected.

Fifty miles up and more, where HAARP does its work, is almost deep space (it's more than halfway to the ISS) and the balloon analogy is the stronger for it. There is virtually nothing out there.

This is basic physics. If Electrojet won't address it directly and show figures for how these waves could affect lower levels, he really isn't going anywhere.

Sure, he might pull some wool over folks who don't see the deficiency, maybe tens of thousands might just accept what he is claiming, just look at what "Dr"(fake) Nick Begich has gotten away with for years. But in the real world it isn't going to stand up to any scrutiny.

 

[rezn8d]

How do you invisage HAARP "directs" it's energy? HAARP essentialy focuses it's energy in an UPWARD direction and it gets ABSORBED by the ionosphere, leaving practically nothing to return down.

Not so fast:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/201...ation-to-atmospheric-methane-destruction.html

HAARP

The main instrument at HAARP Station is the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI). This is a high power, high-frequency phased array radio transmitter with a set of 180 antennas, disposed in an array of 12x15 units that occupy a rectangle of about 33 acres (13 hectares). The IRI is used to temporarily energize a small portion of the ionosphere. The study of these disturbed volumes yields important information for understanding natural ionospheric processes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

The main MHZ frequency range (High Frequency Band 3 - 30 MHZ) of the powerful IRI transmitter is slightly different from the 13.56 MHZ needed to break down the methane. However it is very powerful with a 5.1 Giga watt effective radial power at maximum output. The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) at HAARP transmits over the range 2.8 MHZ to 10 MHZ slightly less than the 13.56 MHZ used to break down methane but as mentioned previously if the IRI transmitted a 10 MHz carrier waves modulated by a 3.56 MHz signal it will generate an Upper Side Frequency of 13.56 MHz which is the methane destruction frequency (Penguin Dictionary of Physics 2000).

Noctilucent clouds which are common in the Arctic form from water condensing around meteorite dust in the mesosphere above 50 km altitude and are becoming more and more abundant and are being seen at much lower latitudes. The increase in the methane concentration in the stratosphere and its oxidation in the mesosphere is resulting in more water at these high altitudes and an increase in the noctilucent clouds. The noctilucent clouds help reflect the suns heat back into space so if we can break down more methane with the HAARP or Lucy transmitters we should generate more clouds and thus help reverse global warming by:-

a) Getting rid of the high global warming potential methane at low altitudes and in the stratospheric global warming veil.

b) Generating sunshine reflecting noctilucent clouds in increasing amounts in the mesosphere which will reflect the suns energy back into space.

The HAARP facility has discovered what they call Polar Mesosphere Summer Echoes which are elusive phenomena which may be due to a thicker development of noctilucent clouds in the Arctic summer due to the increasing methane build up. These echoes are detected with the IRI transmitter when it is used as a radar with one 28 MHZ radar and two other VHF radars of 49 MHZ and 139 MHZ. If we could transmit 13.56 MHZ on the IRI transmitter and use the other radars and optical cameras to look for reflections from noctilucent clouds formed from the breakdown of methane in a circular zone above the HAARP transmitter we should be able to effectively test the system. There ought to be a buildup of the noctilucent clouds in the area where the HAARP transmissions are focused on the ionosphere. If it works there are 4 other similar facilities in the world (Hipas, Alaska; Arecibo, Puerto Rico, EISCAT, Norway and Sura, Russia) where they could immediately attack the atmospheric methane as well.

HAARP Contacts, 2012.
John Hechscher, Director, HAARP, Gakona, Alaska
haarp.alaska.edu

377th Airforce Base Wing Public Affairs, 2000 Wyoming Blvd SE, Suite A1, Kirkland Air Force base, NM, 87117

I will gladly accept Sam Carana, Malcolm Light, and AMEG's opinion on the capabilities of HAARP over the opinions offered so far. Really enjoying the OP's posts, great reading material. Anyway, carry on, and I suppose, attempt to debunk this too?

The rest is here: http://rezn8d.com/

 

[Cairenn]

Sorry, the fact that something destroys a tiny amount of methane in the atmosphere is NOT going to make a difference. Too SMALL.

 

[rezn8d]

Sorry, the fact that something destroys a tiny amount of methane in the atmosphere is NOT going to make a difference. Too SMALL.

I'll use the typical metabunk one liner:

Can you provide some direct evidence that destroying "tiny" amounts of methane and making diamond dust clouds will "NOT" make a difference??

Malcolm Light presented/invented the Lucy transmitter/HAARP geoengineering idea, Sam Carana loves it, and AMEG endorses it, and those are facts.

http://thegazette.com/2012/04/15/the-time-to-attack-methane-is-now/

There, I got to know Malcolm Light, inventor of the radio frequency transmitter that is designed to decompose methane in the atmosphere. He authorized me to present his proposal to Rockwell Collins.

What do you think? He has no patent on his invention and is sharing it with no strings attached. He said we don't have enough time to get a patent on it. He is a retired professor from the University of Texas but he lives in Spain.
Brion Hurley, who works at Rockwell Collins, agreed to forward the proposal for consideration. (Editor's note: Hurley told The Gazette last week that the device needs more testing and funding before any project can advance).

So in short, really smart guys think HAARP can make reflective clouds above the IRI array using a 13.65 hz signal and atmospheric methane. This fact cannot be debunked.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Not so fast

I agree.

]so if we can break down more methane with the HAARP or Lucy transmitters we should generate more clouds and thus help reverse global warming by...

If it works there are 4 other similar facilities in the world (Hipas, Alaska; Arecibo, Puerto Rico, EISCAT, Norway and Sura, Russia) where they could immediately attack the atmospheric methane as well.

Does this even work? Have they conducted the experiment? What were the results?[/SIZE]

 

[Cairenn]

So Jim reposted something that had already been debunked here. I guess I was lazy to not catch that.

 

[solrey]

I'll use the typical metabunk one liner:

Can you provide some direct evidence that destroying "tiny" amounts of methane and making diamond dust clouds will "NOT" make a difference??

Malcolm Light presented/invented the Lucy transmitter/HAARP geoengineering idea, Sam Carana loves it, and AMEG endorses it, and those are facts.

http://thegazette.com/2012/04/15/the-time-to-attack-methane-is-now/

There, I got to know Malcolm Light, inventor of the radio frequency transmitter that is designed to decompose methane in the atmosphere. He authorized me to present his proposal to Rockwell Collins.

What do you think? He has no patent on his invention and is sharing it with no strings attached. He said we don't have enough time to get a patent on it. He is a retired professor from the University of Texas but he lives in Spain.
Brion Hurley, who works at Rockwell Collins, agreed to forward the proposal for consideration. (Editor's note: Hurley told The Gazette last week that the device needs more testing and funding before any project can advance).

So in short, really smart guys think HAARP can make reflective clouds above the IRI array using a 13.65 hz signal and atmospheric methane. This fact cannot be debunked.

Already debunked
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/27961/

In a nutshell it's a proposal from someone named Malcolm P.R. Light, apparently more of an activist than a scientist. The article/proposal is full of unsupported claims, some of which include that the Arctic will be totally ice free year round by 2015 and another is that all life on Earth will be extinct by 2050... but his idea can save us. The author claims that transmitting radio waves into the atmosphere at 13.56 MHz will "destroy" methane.

I'm pretty sure he's just making that up, but oddly enough I couldn't find a reference in the article/proposal to any papers involving a commonly used industrial deposition process using radiofrequency methane plasmas such as Particle Collecting in a 13.56 MHz Radiofrequency Methane Discharge. But that process uses an RF modulated high voltage discharge in a vacuum chamber, a far cry from transmitting 13.56 MHz radio waves into the atmosphere, or even the ionosphere, to achieve the same result.

Oh, and nearly all the references are self-citations to the authors own blog and a geo-engineering blog the author is also associated with. Not a single reference about using radio waves to decompose methane, but there is a lone reference to the spectroscopy of methane, like absorption bands and such.

So in short, some guys not as smart as you think they are, are making shit up.

 

[Pete Tar]

Electrojet, how much have you invested in this view of HAARP and gravity wave manipulation?
Will it matter if it just does not and cannot work the way you believe it does?
What has led you to hold this belief, as it doesn't seem to be actual real-world physics at this point? Is it to do with your religious beliefs? Was there some real-world phenomena personally witnessed that led you down this path?
Will you be upset if it's not true? Do you believe it's possible it's not true, or are you convinced no matter what?

 

[electrojet]

Let's think about that bit for a while. How much energy?

HAARP works by heating the ionosphere, so let's say it's creating a gravity wave by heating the air for a few minutes, so the air heats and rises, and then switching off for a few minutes, so the air cools and falls. So let's say for the sake of argument that this is creating a gravity wave in the ionosphere.

So you have this wave, with 3.6MW of energy, starting in a volume of air that is about 30 miles in diameter. Gravity waves propagate like ripples, so at 1000 miles away the intensity of the signal is (30^2)/(1000^2) = 0.0009 what it was over Alaska, where the energy density was already a stunningly low 3 microwatts per cm2.

How is this piddling small amount of energy going to do anything? less than a billionth of a watt per cm2. It is no more going to affect the weather than rocking a boat at the bottom of Niagara is going to create ripples at the top.

So other than the starting figure of radiated power being 3.6mw, what is your source for the calculation of energy of a gravity wave? What is the energy at the point of wave breaking?

First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found
09.12.06

Weather on Earth has a surprising connection to space weather occurring high in the electrically-charged upper atmosphere, known as the ionosphere, according to new results from NASA satellites.

The ionosphere is formed by solar X-rays and ultraviolet light, which break apart atoms and molecules in the upper atmosphere, creating a layer of electrically-charged gas known as plasma. The densest part of the ionosphere forms two bands of plasma close to the equator at a height of almost 250 miles. From March 20 to April 20, 2002, sensors on board NASA's Imager for Magnetopause to Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) satellite recorded these bands, which glow in ultraviolet light.

Using pictures from IMAGE, the team discovered four pairs of bright regions where the ionosphere was almost twice as dense as the average. Three of the bright pairs were located over tropical rainforests with lots of thunderstorm activity -- the Amazon Basin in South America, the Congo Basin in Africa, and Indonesia. A fourth pair appeared over the Pacific Ocean. Researchers confirmed that the thunderstorms over the three tropical rainforest regions produce tides of air in our atmosphere using a computer simulation developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo., called the Global Scale Wave Model.

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.

However, the researchers discovered the tides could affect the plasma bands indirectly by modifying a layer of the atmosphere below the bands that shapes them. Below the plasma bands, a layer of the ionosphere called the E-layer becomes partially electrified during the day. This region creates the plasma bands above it when high-altitude winds blow plasma in the E-layer across the Earth's magnetic field. Since plasma is electrically charged, its motion across the Earth's magnetic field acts like a generator, creating an electric field. This electric field shapes the plasma above into the two bands. Anything that would change the motion of the E-layer plasma would also change the electric fields they generate, which would then reshape the plasma bands above.

The Global Scale Wave Model indicated the tides should dump their energy about 62 to 75 miles above the Earth in the E-layer. This disrupts the plasma currents there, which alters the electric fields and creates dense, bright zones in the plasma bands above.

"This discovery has immediate implications for space weather, identifying four sectors on the Earth where space storms may produce greater ionospheric disturbances. North America is in one of these sectors, which may help explain why the U.S. suffers uniquely extreme ionospheric conditions during space weather events," Immel said.

Here; http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

So there are some additional plasma physics that need to be addressed. It needs to be looked at if ARECIBO and other transmitters (such as SBX platforms) can modify the motion of the E-layer plasma. The answer ? Mick, Solrey, Jazzy, Mike, Jay, just...?, ?

Plasma physics is the key and not atmospheric density.

I had previously posted about this and this post is not showing here now.

Plasma bands above the tropics.


Bryan

 

[Cairenn]

The air in the ionosphere is much less dense than than the air in the mesosphere. How can it falling cause anything other than a very slight gravity-wave? It would be like dropping a feather onto a water bed. The effect is so tiny that it is essentially nil.

You have been asked for some figures, a physicist lives by numbers. Can you show how this tiny bit of energy from the 'falling' gas (remember, the air there is so thin, that it would kill any breathing critter.) can cause an effect for say more than 10 miles.

 

[electrojet]

Hi Pete,

Electrojet, how much have you invested in this view of HAARP and gravity wave manipulation?
Will it matter if it just does not and cannot work the way you believe it does?
What has led you to hold this belief, as it doesn't seem to be actual real-world physics at this point? Is it to do with your religious beliefs? Was there some real-world phenomena personally witnessed that led you down this path?
Will you be upset if it's not true? Do you believe it's possible it's not true, or are you convinced no matter what?

Hi Pete,

I have invested some time to learning about gravity waves and the vertical dynamics of atmospheric coupling.
It will not matter if rf transmitters do not and cannot work the way I believe they do, and the way they appear to.

The main objections raised here are 1) processes are bottom > up only 2) atmospheric heating at 50-400km is not enough to impart any effect below (no density up there, less molecules) 3) transmitter effects are miniscule in comparison to solar variability. 4) intentional weather modification is not happening (except for cloud seeding)

I believe that all 4 of these objections are shown to be incorrect through the various research documentation that is readily available.

The skepticism comes by way of looking at HAARP effects as atmospheric processes only. Mick, Jazzy, Solrey and others are viewing these processes in part.
Ex; HAARP is an ionospheric heater. Yes- but this in not a complete description of actions imparted in the mid and upper atmosphere.

The electrojet and ionospheric plasma ropes or bands are energetic events. Plasma physics.

My interest in the subject matter goes back more than 10 years of observing space weather on a daily basis, being curious about radio wave frequencies and rf transmitter capabilities. My belief is that solar variability (flares, cme's etc.) impart very significant affects on earth weather. I posted in this thread yesterday about my anecdotal observations of solar variability and coupling with weather, and today the post is not showing here. I also had links to space weather-earth weather coupling. Here yesterday and gone today.

Gravity waves are not the strongest evidence of this modification. They are the most difficult evidence to present. There are not publicly available research documents with the abstract or title that state - Arecibo 2 week experiment demonstrates hadley cell blocking via zonal wind adjustment (or other).
It is possible that transmitter effects on zonal winds are not large enough to impart a major disruption of either weather or large scale circulation.

My faith is most important. The point that space weather such as artificial mesospheric gravity waves or rf transmissions modifying the E layer of the ionosphere are inconsequential.

I have experienced disclosure before. It is always unsatisfying for me and I have found others that agree.
I am not upset about anything regarding weather modification and it is possible that it is not true.

Bryan

 

[Cairenn]

I still would like you to explain your ideas with some numbers. Physics depends on being able to 'show your work'.

A leaf falling on a large lake, might create a small ripple, IF and only IF there was nothing else effecting it. The mesosphere has other things effecting it, how can a minute change effect anything?

Have you discussed your theories with any meteorologists, or researchers or anyone in an university physics department? What are their opinions?

Both my hubby and I have physics backgrounds and neither one of us have seen any evidence from you that would incline us to agree with you. Many of my classes were from professors that worked in space science (they had had worked on both NASA and ESA plantary probes for years before I started there).

 

[electrojet]

Not so fast:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/201...ation-to-atmospheric-methane-destruction.html

HAARP

The main instrument at HAARP Station is the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI). This is a high power, high-frequency phased array radio transmitter with a set of 180 antennas, disposed in an array of 12x15 units that occupy a rectangle of about 33 acres (13 hectares). The IRI is used to temporarily energize a small portion of the ionosphere. The study of these disturbed volumes yields important information for understanding natural ionospheric processes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

The main MHZ frequency range (High Frequency Band 3 - 30 MHZ) of the powerful IRI transmitter is slightly different from the 13.56 MHZ needed to break down the methane. However it is very powerful with a 5.1 Giga watt effective radial power at maximum output. The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) at HAARP transmits over the range 2.8 MHZ to 10 MHZ slightly less than the 13.56 MHZ used to break down methane but as mentioned previously if the IRI transmitted a 10 MHz carrier waves modulated by a 3.56 MHz signal it will generate an Upper Side Frequency of 13.56 MHz which is the methane destruction frequency (Penguin Dictionary of Physics 2000).

Noctilucent clouds which are common in the Arctic form from water condensing around meteorite dust in the mesosphere above 50 km altitude and are becoming more and more abundant and are being seen at much lower latitudes. The increase in the methane concentration in the stratosphere and its oxidation in the mesosphere is resulting in more water at these high altitudes and an increase in the noctilucent clouds. The noctilucent clouds help reflect the suns heat back into space so if we can break down more methane with the HAARP or Lucy transmitters we should generate more clouds and thus help reverse global warming by:-

a) Getting rid of the high global warming potential methane at low altitudes and in the stratospheric global warming veil.

b) Generating sunshine reflecting noctilucent clouds in increasing amounts in the mesosphere which will reflect the suns energy back into space.

The HAARP facility has discovered what they call Polar Mesosphere Summer Echoes which are elusive phenomena which may be due to a thicker development of noctilucent clouds in the Arctic summer due to the increasing methane build up. These echoes are detected with the IRI transmitter when it is used as a radar with one 28 MHZ radar and two other VHF radars of 49 MHZ and 139 MHZ. If we could transmit 13.56 MHZ on the IRI transmitter and use the other radars and optical cameras to look for reflections from noctilucent clouds formed from the breakdown of methane in a circular zone above the HAARP transmitter we should be able to effectively test the system. There ought to be a buildup of the noctilucent clouds in the area where the HAARP transmissions are focused on the ionosphere. If it works there are 4 other similar facilities in the world (Hipas, Alaska; Arecibo, Puerto Rico, EISCAT, Norway and Sura, Russia) where they could immediately attack the atmospheric methane as well.

HAARP Contacts, 2012.
John Hechscher, Director, HAARP, Gakona, Alaska
haarp.alaska.edu

377th Airforce Base Wing Public Affairs, 2000 Wyoming Blvd SE, Suite A1, Kirkland Air Force base, NM, 87117

I will gladly accept Sam Carana, Malcolm Light, and AMEG's opinion on the capabilities of HAARP over the opinions offered so far. Really enjoying the OP's posts, great reading material. Anyway, carry on, and I suppose, attempt to debunk this too?

The rest is here: http://rezn8d.com/

Hi Jim,

Please keep reading here for dusty plasma research and much more on weather modification. The plasma bands above the rainforests release is more evidence of how rf transmitters modify weather.

The above post and link are very interesting. The debunking may focus on the alarmist nature of the presenters and/or the amount of methane that may be released in a very short amount of time (the sky is falling), and where is an additional source for methane abatement. Has the experiment been done? Find this experiment. I will show more research on chemistry modification in the ionospheric region - there is going to be overlap with the methane claims.

Debunking is good. There is always additional evidence.

Thanks for your website. One of the very few I have seen that is comprehensive in the right areas. Collection of data that you have is beneficial to both those who are brand new to modification inquiry and to people like me who have been looking at it for a long time.

Bryan

 

[electrojet]

The air in the ionosphere is much less dense than than the air in the mesosphere. How can it falling cause anything other than a very slight gravity-wave? It would be like dropping a feather onto a water bed. The effect is so tiny that it is essentially nil.

You have been asked for some figures, a physicist lives by numbers. Can you show how this tiny bit of energy from the 'falling' gas (remember, the air there is so thin, that it would kill any breathing critter.) can cause an effect for say more than 10 miles.

Hi Cairenn,

Sounds like I will need to have some plasma physics information. We are going to go into the lab first, and then into the upper atmosphere. Both will be beneficial.

Right now. I have to sleep. I am not taking lightly examining the right sources of evidence... partially the reason for the slow responses. The other part is I am involved with my Faith, Wife, Job, and relaxation, and then this line of inquiry. In that order.

Thanks,

Bryan

 

[JFDee]

The plasma bands above the rainforests release is more evidence of how rf transmitters modify weather.

I can't find evidence for your assumption. The connection between earth and space weather that was discovered in 2006 shows a down-to-up direction - again. Do you have more on that?
http://www.nasa-usa.de/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

The debunking may focus on the alarmist nature of the presenters and/or the amount of methane that may be released in a very short amount of time (the sky is falling), and where is an additional source for methane abatement.

Hmm - this statement suggests that you distrust science when it comes to global warming. Is my impression correct?

Has the experiment been done?

That is the question that rezn8d should have asked. As with other proposals to mitigate global warming, it's just that: a proposal.

What I give to you is that you pointed out several uncertainties and possibilities regarding the interaction of ionosphere and troposphere.

Still, the absolute figures are at the center of the claim about weather modification by HAARP et al., there is no way around that.

If you think that HAARP's announced energy budget and capabilities are incorrect, mind that it is hard to conceal a higher power consumption and a higher output energy or unusual frequencies. There is no way to prevent signal diffusion completely; anyone in the neighborhood can detect it.

 

[Mick West]

So other than the starting figure of radiated power being 3.6mw, what is your source for the calculation of energy of a gravity wave? What is the energy at the point of wave breaking?

It is no more than the total amount of energy put into the wave, less friction losses, divided over the areas of the wave.

So why don't you put some numbers onto this?

If I create a big enough wave at the bottom of the Niagra, I CAN affect the top. For example, if I were to explode a small nuke at the bottom of the Niagra, it could affect the top.

But that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a guy standing in a little row boat, and rocking it back and forth.

Put up some numbers, or your speculation is meaningless.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

So other than the starting figure of radiated power being 3.6mw, what is your source for the calculation of energy of a gravity wave? What is the energy at the point of wave breaking? Bryan

Bryan, you should begin studying the subject you say you are interested in, and be telling US the answer. You remind me of folks who say they have "researched" "chemtrails" for years, but aren't acquainted with the basics of ordinary contrail formation.

Plasma physics is the key and not atmospheric density.
Bryan

Yes, it is clear that atmospheric density plays no part in the physics of the atmosphere or how energy travels through it!

The medium through which a wave travels has absolutely no effect, eh!

 

[Pete Tar]

...

I have experienced disclosure before. It is always unsatisfying for me and I have found others that agree.
...

Thanks.
What was the disclosure you experienced and why was it disappointing? (I assume not alien-related, which is often the context disclosure is used in)
Are you saying information was with-held from you, or is it just that the mundane reality never lived up to what you imagined when you didn't know the whole truth?

 

[FuzzyUK]

.... The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) at HAARP transmits over the range 2.8 MHZ to 10 MHZ slightly less than the 13.56 MHZ used to break down methane but as mentioned previously if the IRI transmitted a 10 MHz carrier waves modulated by a 3.56 MHz signal it will generate an Upper Side Frequency of 13.56 MHz which is the methane destruction frequency (Penguin Dictionary of Physics 2000).

There is no such thing as a specific 'methane destruction frequency'. 13.56Mhz (and 27.12Mhz) are internationally accepted frequencies/bands used by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipments.

You could probably bust up methane directly with a 10 Mhz signal if the theory stands up to scrutiny, but why bother when the sun, which has zillions of times more energy than HAARP, is probably doing this on a daily basis?

(P.S. Any attempt to shove a high power 3.56 Mhz signal up an antenna is going to incur the wrath of 80 meter amateur radio operators screaming foul play.)

 

[Pete]

Fossil burning probably impacts both climate and weather. Which is to say, that I do not understand either weather or climate.

I find it a little odd that you claim to know so much about heating of the upper atmosphere and its effects on the weather, but then claim to not understand the weather or climate!!

 

[Rob Light]

Malcolm Light is my father, and if you'd like to talk to him about his ideas please do so. I can put you in contact with him.And yes, he is both a scientist and an activist. He is trying to provide a future for my 3 year old (his grandson) and everyone else's children. So yes, he comes across as an activist. However. He has no
agenda. Is not after fame or fortune. Has no patents on his ideas or inventions. He does not get paid for any of the things he is actively doing on a daily basis. He is just trying get other people to do what needs to be done.
I genuinely hope those of you that think his science is nonsense are right, if only for the sake of my little boy.

 

[Pete Tar]

Who's Malcolm Light?

 

[Rob Light]

Who's Malcolm Light?

Further up in the thread:

Not so fast:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/201...ation-to-atmospheric-methane-destruction.html

phased array radio transmitter with a set of 180 antennas, disposed in an array of 12x15 units that occupy a rectangle of about 33 acres (13 hectares). The IRI is used to temporarily energize a small portion of theionosphere. The study of these disturbed volumes yields important information for understanding natural ionospheric processes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

The main MHZ frequency range (High Frequency Band 3 - 30 MHZ) of the powerful IRI transmitter is slightly different from the 13.56 MHZ needed to break down the methane. However it is very powerful with a 5.1 Giga watt effective radial power at maximum output. The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) at HAARP transmits over the range 2.8 MHZ to 10 MHZ slightly less than the 13.56 MHZ used to break down methane but as mentioned previously if the IRI transmitted a 10 MHz carrier waves modulated by a 3.56 MHz signal it will generate an Upper Side Frequency of 13.56 MHz which is the methane destruction frequency (Penguin Dictionary of Physics 2000).

Noctilucent clouds which are common in the Arctic form from water condensing around meteorite dust in the mesosphere above 50 km altitude and are becoming more and more abundant and are being seen at much lower latitudes. The increase in the methane concentration in the stratosphere and its oxidation in the mesosphere is resulting in more water at these high altitudes and an increase in the noctilucent clouds. The noctilucent clouds help reflect the suns heat back into space so if we can break down more methane with the HAARP or Lucy transmitters we should generate more clouds and thus help reverse global warming by:-

a) Getting rid of the high global warming potential methane at low altitudes and in the stratospheric global warming veil.

b) Generating sunshine reflecting noctilucent clouds in increasing amounts in the mesosphere which will reflect the suns energy back into space.

The HAARP facility has discovered what they call Polar Mesosphere Summer Echoes which are elusive phenomena which may be due to a thicker development of noctilucent clouds in the Arctic summer due to the increasing methane build up. These echoes are detected with the IRI transmitter when it is used as a radar with one 28 MHZ radar and two other VHF radars of 49 MHZ and 139 MHZ. If we could transmit 13.56 MHZ on the IRI transmitter and use the other radars and optical cameras to look for reflections from noctilucent clouds formed from the breakdown of methane in a circular zone above the HAARP transmitter we should be able to effectively test the system. There ought to be a buildup of the noctilucent clouds in the area where the HAARP transmissions are focused on the ionosphere. If it works there are 4 other similar facilities in the world (Hipas, Alaska; Arecibo, Puerto Rico, EISCAT, Norway and Sura, Russia) where they could immediately attack the atmospheric methane as well.

HAARP Contacts, 2012.
John Hechscher, Director, HAARP, Gakona, Alaska
haarp.alaska.edu

377th Airforce Base Wing Public Affairs, 2000 Wyoming Blvd SE, Suite A1, Kirkland Air Force base, NM, 87117


I will gladly accept Sam Carana, Malcolm Light, and AMEG's opinion on the capabilities of HAARP over the opinions offered so far. Really enjoying the OP's posts, great reading material. Anyway, carry on, and I suppose, attempt to debunk this too?

The rest is here: http://rezn8d.com/

 

[JRBids]

"Should", "if", "ought to be".

 

[Skaredstiff]

Further up in the thread:

Not so fast:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/201...ation-to-atmospheric-methane-destruction.html

phased array radio transmitter with a set of 180 antennas, disposed in an array of 12x15 units that occupy a rectangle of about 33 acres (13 hectares). The IRI is used to temporarily energize a small portion of theionosphere. The study of these disturbed volumes yields important information for understanding natural ionospheric processes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

The main MHZ frequency range (High Frequency Band 3 - 30 MHZ) of the powerful IRI transmitter is slightly different from the 13.56 MHZ needed to break down the methane. However it is very powerful with a 5.1 Giga watt effective radial power at maximum output. The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) at HAARP transmits over the range 2.8 MHZ to 10 MHZ slightly less than the 13.56 MHZ used to break down methane but as mentioned previously if the IRI transmitted a 10 MHz carrier waves modulated by a 3.56 MHz signal it will generate an Upper Side Frequency of 13.56 MHz which is the methane destruction frequency (Penguin Dictionary of Physics 2000).

Noctilucent clouds which are common in the Arctic form from water condensing around meteorite dust in the mesosphere above 50 km altitude and are becoming more and more abundant and are being seen at much lower latitudes. The increase in the methane concentration in the stratosphere and its oxidation in the mesosphere is resulting in more water at these high altitudes and an increase in the noctilucent clouds. The noctilucent clouds help reflect the suns heat back into space so if we can break down more methane with the HAARP or Lucy transmitters we should generate more clouds and thus help reverse global warming by:-

a) Getting rid of the high global warming potential methane at low altitudes and in the stratospheric global warming veil.

b) Generating sunshine reflecting noctilucent clouds in increasing amounts in the mesosphere which will reflect the suns energy back into space.

The HAARP facility has discovered what they call Polar Mesosphere Summer Echoes which are elusive phenomena which may be due to a thicker development of noctilucent clouds in the Arctic summer due to the increasing methane build up. These echoes are detected with the IRI transmitter when it is used as a radar with one 28 MHZ radar and two other VHF radars of 49 MHZ and 139 MHZ. If we could transmit 13.56 MHZ on the IRI transmitter and use the other radars and optical cameras to look for reflections from noctilucent clouds formed from the breakdown of methane in a circular zone above the HAARP transmitter we should be able to effectively test the system. There ought to be a buildup of the noctilucent clouds in the area where the HAARP transmissions are focused on the ionosphere. If it works there are 4 other similar facilities in the world (Hipas, Alaska; Arecibo, Puerto Rico, EISCAT, Norway and Sura, Russia) where they could immediately attack the atmospheric methane as well.

HAARP Contacts, 2012.
John Hechscher, Director, HAARP, Gakona, Alaska
haarp.alaska.edu

377th Airforce Base Wing Public Affairs, 2000 Wyoming Blvd SE, Suite A1, Kirkland Air Force base, NM, 87117


I will gladly accept Sam Carana, Malcolm Light, and AMEG's opinion on the capabilities of HAARP over the opinions offered so far. Really enjoying the OP's posts, great reading material. Anyway, carry on, and I suppose, attempt to debunk this too?

The rest is here: http://rezn8d.com/

OK this might be a place where the CT folks can answer a simple question?
If all this CT stuff, in total, as in all of these threads, is true, is this not the prime time for those in "control" to wield their great power? I mean why bomb Syria when we could just send them bad weather, magnetic storms, aluminum posin etc... This is the best way to use such technology? The powers that be could just wipe out the regime by controlling the weather. Send a hurricane to the desert! Real bad! Loss of life could be minimized and there would never have to be an admission of this high tech ability put to use? Of course denial by the power, the standard response, would be expected and thus no tipping of a hand would be made? But I guess they are saving this tech to be kept secret until after they wipe us all out with the usual very harmful explosive weapons. Dohhh but then the tech would be wasted as it would not be necessary once those who win it all have control over their own minions! I guess then they could restart the agriculture by at least being able to control the rain/ Once they achieve the goal do we really think THEY will all fall in step and not try to get to the top of the new pile of dung?

 

[Skaredstiff]

OK this might be a place where the CT folks can answer a simple question?
If all this CT stuff, in total, as in all of these threads, is true, is this not the prime time for those in "control" to wield their great power? I mean why bomb Syria when we could just send them bad weather, magnetic storms, aluminum posin etc... This is the best way to use such technology? The powers that be could just wipe out the regime by controlling the weather. Send a hurricane to the desert! Real bad! Loss of life could be minimized and there would never have to be an admission of this high tech ability put to use? Of course denial by the power, the standard response, would be expected and thus no tipping of a hand would be made? But I guess they are saving this tech to be kept secret until after they wipe us all out with the usual very harmful explosive weapons. Dohhh but then the tech would be wasted as it would not be necessary once those who win it all have control over their own minions! I guess then they could restart the agriculture by at least being able to control the rain/ Once they achieve the goal do we really think THEY will all fall in step and not try to get to the top of the new pile of dung?

Well it has been some time (36 hours) since I requested a simple answer from the CT folks?

It is about what I exoected, as bottom line is that theres is no such thing as the technology they claim is the scourge of the world. Yet that they all fear this fiction so much! All of this imagined power is just that, imaginary and a fairy tale. Clearly Syria is the ideal place to use the environmental engineering weapon, at least as a test site! Comon' lets see what this stuff can do already!

I guess it really does not exist at all? Either that or I hit a soft spot when I asked what happens afterwards? The CT folks have never thought about what happens after all the "target" folks are gone and then only those who did us all in are left. They no doubt will use their other nefarious weapons to battle each other into oblivion. In the end no one wins!

Please tell me there is someone amoung you who has the intelligence to answer my very simple question!

 

[FuzzyUK]

Further up in the thread:
The Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) at HAARP transmits over the range 2.8 MHZ to 10 MHZ slightly less than the 13.56 MHZ used to break down methane but as mentioned previously if the IRI transmitted a 10 MHz carrier waves modulated by a 3.56 MHz signal it will generate an Upper Side Frequency of 13.56 MHz which is the methane destruction frequency (Penguin Dictionary of Physics 2000)

There is no such specific thing as a "13.56 MHz methane destruction frequency". It's simply a frequency allocated for industrial, scientific and medical purposes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band