Contrails, Gravity Waves, and HAARP

electrojet

New Member
Greetings.

It is a great night. Good to have a little time to post about the science of weather modification.

Hi Lotek. This thread has already provided much evidence that HAARP modifies weather. This a debunking forum and it's all good and par for the course. The documents speak clearly for the importance of vertical coupling processes, a dynamic system and transmitter facilities modifying the weather.

The starting point is from the link to the EISCAT Job posting that is necessarily examined one more time.
Solrey had mentioned that the higher up in the atmosphere the less density there is. The key aspect with regards to gravity waves at 50-90km is their amplitude, energy/energy potential as well as the molecular changes that occur at these heights. More than one paper that I have read discuss the wave breaking as violent. Also, the reason I implore multiple readings of the above job posting is because of the energy transfer that is both upwards and downwards (as the breaking of waves relationship to down welling in the polar vortex.)

Buoyancy waves 101. http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/hgrav.htm

This link http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2000/09rr/09rr001/09rr001_full.pdf illustrates 2 ways in which transmitter arrays modify gravity waves. The most obvious way is that acoustic gravity waves are excited by HAARP. This excitation is delineated from the concurrent auroral event. AGW's are differentiated from IGW's by their frequency signature. Maybe it is just me, but the enthusiasm is palpable and it exudes from the conclusion that their experiment produced notable local effects that were clearly separate from the solar stream and include acoustic wave "excitation" large plasma sheet creation and magnetic field fluctuations. Definition of excitation anyone, in science that is increasing the potential or energy pretty much, right?

The second way that atmospheric heaters change gravity waves is that they create a large plasma sheet or an artificial duct. This affects wave turning at the boundary layer. It is at this point that waves can reflect, become evanescent, dissipate or become entrained in the duct. Since the duct is artificially formed, the gravity wave is also changed artificially. ANY of these results is going to effect gravity wave breaking.
I think that this paper is one that discusses wave turning, if not let me know and I will insert the link that does instead. http://www.geo.uni-frankfurt.de/iau/ThMet/pdf/achatz2005.pdf

Previously I posted a link to a website from someone who claimed that transmitter facilities can create gravity waves. I immediately began looking for other support of this statement from more legitimate sources. I am still looking to open a few abstracts and translate some other papers and will post it here. At this time, the evidence is that HAARP modifies gravity waves and "excites" acoustic gravity waves. This is based upon the heating capabilities of HAARP and other transmitters, based upon the demonstrated upwelling of both the lower side of the ionosphere and the topside, and based upon the plasma sheets, artificial mirrors and sustained plasma balls. I am increasingly confident that the eccentric source is correct.

cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/13105/InTech-Atmospheric_gravity_waves_and_effects_in_the_upper_atmosphere_associated_with_tsunamis.pdf

In reviewing the Fritts Alexander 03 paper, the authors state that a complete survey of Mid altitude gravity waves is outside the scope of their report and it mentions the standard sources and
from http://www.cora.nwra.com/~alexand/publications/FrittsAlexander03.pdf

This is an excerpt of an artificially induced upwelling. There are full papers available on this capability through the internet and I think I previously linked one on upwelling. http://www.researchgate.net/publica...rtificial_ionospheric_ion_upwelling_at_EISCAT

This link is an examination of the of gravity waves that may be caused by a seismic source. Joule heating that perturbs the ionosphere and causes gravity waves. http://www.ss.ncu.edu.tw/~jyliu/paper/2006076.pdf If you do not think that this is related, just look at the airglow above these events and compare the artificial airglows from transmitters as a starting comparison.

Here Joule heating via the aurora is indicated as creating gravity waves. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026<0210:OTROJH>2.0.CO;2

In summary. HAARP does influence gravity wave breaking. This alone is sufficient to alter localized weather, large scale weather and even climatic systems.

The evidence for creation of gravity waves increasingly appears to be right in front of all our faces in the forms of 1) creation of a new large plasma field / ducting. 2) Causing upwelling by heating and creating sustained artificial plasmas and plasma mirrors.

There is a LOT more scientific evidence that heaters are modifying the weather or even influencing climatic circulation.
The revelation for me is the avalanche of scientific papers detailing the vertical coupling between atmospheric layers. The claim that gravity wave breaking effects weather / climate is not limited to the EISCAT job posting, it is all over the research. I am more than happy to spam out the links here if anyone wants more of them.

I will stick with the gravity wave and wave breaking for a while, but I am really looking forward to discussing avalanching energy, and tapping into some other transmitter capabilities.

Bryan

“Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can.”
― John Wesley
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Can you show use the evidence of how the heating is effecting the weather?

I would like an explanation of why your proposal seems to be ignoring the effect of the oceans on weather. We know that they have major effects on weather, look at El Nino
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
[snip] weather modification.

[snip] This thread has already provided much evidence that HAARP modifies weather. This a debunking forum and it's all good and par for the course. [snip]

So that is a statement of your claim.
Can you give an example of where and when this has happened?
I'm looking for a place and a date, what "should" have happened, and what actually happened as a result of the weather modification.
Thanks.
:popcorn:
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
This thread has already provided much evidence that HAARP modifies weather.

I have read this entire thread, and I don't think that is true. However, not being a scientist, the reason I believe that is the others' argument is stronger than yours.

But that is not why I am commenting here.

I have a question:
I live on Long Island and I always see statements such as "we are really getting HAARPed!" "look at those HAARP clouds!" from chemtrailers on the island. I would like to know where there are other HAARP facilities. Wiki says: "In America, there are two related ionospheric heating facilities: the HIPAS, near Fairbanks, Alaska, which was dismantled in 2009, and (currently offline for reconstruction) one at the Arecibo Observatory[16] in Puerto Rico. The European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT) operates an ionospheric heating facility, capable of transmitting over 1 GW effective radiated power(ERP), near Tromsø, Norway.[17]Russia has the Sura Ionospheric Heating Facility, in Vasilsursk near Nizhniy Novgorod, capable of transmitting 190 MW ERP."

None of these seem close enough to affect clouds over Long Island, NY. How do these HAARP pulses, or whatever, travel such long distances? (Please do not tell me we have any HAARP facilities on LI)

Also, how do these odd (to you) clouds actually affect the weather? It seems HAARP is supposed to be changing clouds that area already there. If the cloud already exists, how is the weather different if they're flat or wavy?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
In summary. HAARP does influence gravity wave breaking. This alone is sufficient to alter localized weather, large scale weather and even climatic systems.

None of your sources mention HAARP.

While HAARP does heat the ionosphere as some of them do mention, there is no evidence provided that the relatively small amount of energy it uses (3.6 MW) is sufficient to achieve the results you claim - that is pure speculation on your part.
 

lotek

Active Member
"Hi Lotek. This thread has already provided much evidence that HAARP modifies weather."

No.

you have posted countless unrelated documents spanning a wide range of topics that you are incorrectly stitching together.

Heating a near vacuum a minute amount does not effect the weather. the atmosphere is not an energy-less system. haarp effects it about as much as a seagul flapping its wings.... you are interpreting vaguely related articles as having a cause and effect.

Ross, as a more than qualified person may i ask you to address the science he is misrepresenting?

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring

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

Read them. they may help you understand why we are not so fast to accept your 'evidence' as such.
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi Lotek,

It is good to be skeptical. I am confident that you will continue to develop discernment.

Here's the abstract on transmitters ability to create gravity waves.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL052004
So transmitters cause gravity waves. This has very big implications as in climatic weather patterns as well as local weather.

Metabunk is at the forefront of providing scientific evidence that our weather is being zapped and altered ( modified. )

Ross, that is a very tall order.

Mike and JR Your questions will be discussed next post.

God Bless !
Bryan,
 
Last edited by a moderator:

electrojet

New Member
A quick reply re; the photo. It was from a photo search for gravity wave clouds and I just selected it as the one that was the most dramatic. It may be evidence of turbulence, wave-wave mixing, wave breaking or not. I see clouds like that and it makes me think of all the variables involved and the power when it coalesces.

Two of the claims about these transmitter arrays I see bandied about a lot are, HAARP can't really do much and (related) these transmitters effects are very small in comparison to an X19 flare. Scientifically, both of these claims can be shown to be wrong. The EISCAT posting and the links here demonstrate that modifying gravity waves alters circulation patterns.

The exact outcome of these various projects is unknown to me. My own guess is that it is just an added layer of chaos, one that increases extremes such as long heat waves or other extremes. For guided control of individual systems, I think that there will have to be more than f layer heating and added wave breaking.

Bryan

“Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men know a great deal, and are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom.”
―Charles H. Spurgeon
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi Cairenn,

That is an interesting question. Oceans drive global temperatures and gravity waves are formed there. Cairenn, I don't think we are close to having weather modelled correctly.
 

Met Watch

Moderator
Hi Cairenn,

That is an interesting question. Oceans drive global temperatures and gravity waves are formed there. Cairenn, I don't think we are close to having weather modelled correctly.

But we're doing well enough, clearly. There are some excellent, excellent weather models currently being used by numerous government agencies around the world for forecasts. The European, the GFS, the NAM, the Canadian, the JMA...I can list several more.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Hi Lotek,

Here's the abstract on transmitters ability to create gravity waves.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052004.shtml
So transmitters cause gravity waves. This has very big implications as in climatic weather patterns as well as local weather.

Eventually maybe - but certainly not now - here is the full paper - the F2 region is at 300km altitude - a long, long way from any weather effects.

Metabunk is at the forefront of providing scientific evidence that our weather is being zapped and altered

I would say this paper comprehensively debunks the notion that any such activity is being done - at best it is a minuscule step towards understanding the physics of the upper atmosphere in a region that is essentially space. Any link to actually doing anything with or about weather or climate would appear to be several generations of study away.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Metabunk is at the forefront of providing scientific evidence that our weather is being zapped and altered

I disagree with Bryansail's nonsense quote. Metabunk is at the forefront of debunking such notions by showing their implausibility and the data which explains why. We also definitively explain the bunk that people like Bryansail are trying to use as "scientific evidence". You've been flogging this old horse for years Bryan. No one is buying.
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi Mike,

That paper is not a very in depth examination. It examines the F2 layer heating, but does not discuss information about the dynamics of vertical coupling, resultant chemistry changes from heating, or magnetic field fluctuations. There are a lot of better papers on the vertical coupling that EISCAT is exploring. EISCAT papers and other studies lend far more weight to gravity waves influencing weather patterns and express considerable confidence in this dynamic vertical linking. The link that I provided from Joel Cohn shows the creation of a large (spreading) plasma sheet. This sheet effects and changes characteristics of gravity waves that originate in the troposphere. The total power of HAARP is only a small portion of the effects that heating facilities have. Example;
from http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/131/2009/angeo-27-131-2009.pdf
There is a multiplication of power that is recorded during many of the experiments. So that these transmitters can have very significant effects on ionospheric processes. I will be posting on this cascading power in the future as evidence that these heating facilities have additional capabilities that have effectively not even been discussed yet. Also there are heating events that have been formed at far lower levels.

The claim is (and still stands) that gravity wave breaking effects meridional circulation and polar circulation. Transmitters are capable of creating gravity waves and effecting the breaking of gravity waves. The paper from Joel Cohen "Excitation of Forced Ion Acoustic Waves, Large Plasma Sheets, and Magnetic Field Fluctuations over Gakona, Alaska." shows a more comprehensive spread of capability. Diagram for atmospheric layers from wiki
Day_and_night_atmos.jpgnacreous clouds from http://frozensouth.com/2008/08/15/nacreous-or-polar-stratospheric-clouds.aspxNacreous_1.JPG

Hi Jay, Hope you keep reading along.

"I figure
...that people have removed faith from their sleeves because they found out for themselves that faith is much too important for careless display. Now they are willing to wait out the days and years for the truthful events, encouraged individually from within; and the more frequently the dramatic phrases advertising love, patriotism, fervent belief, morals, and good fellowship are plagiarized, appropriated and exhibited in the show windows of the world by the propaganda whips for indirect and ulterior motives, no matter how meager the compromise--the more do people withdraw within themselves and shun taking issue with the nauseating perversions, though eternally exhibiting quiet indifference, nonchalance or even cultivating seemingly ignorant acceptance.” -Richard Buckminster Fuller
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Why do major solar storms, hitting the Earth, like the current one, not have a major effect on the weather?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
And also how are the gravity waves you admit rise upwards reflected back down? What reflects them? And what is their medium - radio, magnetic, air?
 

lotek

Active Member
"Metabunk is at the forefront of providing scientific evidence that our weather is being zapped and altered"

We have never found a single piece of data. Never.... im not exactly sure what you are doing in this thread and what you think it is we are doing here....
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Hi Mike,

That paper is not a very in depth examination. It examines the F2 layer heating, but does not discuss information about the dynamics of vertical coupling, resultant chemistry changes from heating, or magnetic field fluctuations. There are a lot of better papers on the vertical coupling that EISCAT is exploring. EISCAT papers and other studies lend far more weight to gravity waves influencing weather patterns and express considerable confidence in this dynamic vertical linking. The link that I provided from Joel Cohn shows the creation of a large (spreading) plasma sheet. This sheet effects and changes characteristics of gravity waves that originate in the troposphere.

That is about waves that originate in the troposphere - not about affecting waves that exist in the troposphere - seems to miss your point completely.


The total power of HAARP is only a small portion of the effects that heating facilities have. Example;
from http://www.ann-geophys.net/27/131/2009/angeo-27-131-2009.pdf
There is a multiplication of power that is recorded during many of the experiments. So that these transmitters can have very significant effects on ionospheric processes. I will be posting on this cascading power in the future as evidence that these heating facilities have additional capabilities that have effectively not even been discussed yet. Also there are heating events that have been formed at far lower levels.


No there is not a multiplication of power. "Effective Radiated Power" does NOT mean that somehow more power is radiated - it is just a measure of thetdirectionality of the beam - HAARP only transmits 3.6MW - but by focusing it into a relatively small area (still 10's of Km wide) it can put as much power into that area as a much more powerful unfocused transmitter would (ie one that radiated evenly in all directions) - and it is the power of that theoretical unfocused transmitter that is the Effective Radiated Power.


The claim is (and still stands) that gravity wave breaking effects meridional circulation and polar circulation. Transmitters are capable of creating gravity waves and effecting the breaking of gravity waves. The paper from Joel Cohen "Excitation of Forced Ion Acoustic Waves, Large Plasma Sheets, and Magnetic Field Fluctuations over Gakona, Alaska." shows a more comprehensive spread of capability.


Not really. We already know that HAARP is an ionospher heater - so we know it puts energy into the plasma in the ionosphere, and there is nothing at all in the paper about gravity waves. His paper is about what instruments can bd used to measure natural phenomena:

The excitation of plasma is also about what instruments can be used to measure phenomena:

I have no idea where you get the idea that this paper is shows some capability to affect anything beyond what we already know HAARP can actually do - as opposed to fantasy conspiracy theories - and it certainly shows nothing at all about gravity waves.
 

electrojet

New Member
Just a quick reply.


Cairenn, The question about solar effects is a mighty good one. This is a developing area of study as researchers are better able to incorporate multiple dynamics of energy effects of solar events. There is an effect on weather from strong solar events that may be much greater than previous estimates. I have my own anecdotal observations that the long term forecast becomes less accurate immediately after solar events. I have also seen that the surface winds in my location typically are higher than the forecast ( increase of 2-6km/hr ) on days where the solar wind speeds are 600km/sec and higher. This effect I have observed for over 10 years as a sailor. My experience is not a strong case for this obviously, but I know other sailors who agree with this dynamic and follow space weather for thos reason. I couldn't rule out that we are wrong but I have benefitted from knowing this effect countless times as I prefer strong winds to sail in.

http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/3698/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf

The link is a detailed paper on observations of gravity waves and climatology. It also discusses transfer functions at length. Gravity wave breaking at 50-90km caused by instabilities can create secondary waves that propogate downwards. I will put another link that focuses on wave changes and also that addresses the wave characteristics that Pete inquired about. That question (what medium) relates to why many people suggest that ionospheric heaters can't do much. If only a portion of the equation is examined, artificial heating doesn't do much. It is better that I point to the research to illustrate the energy involved. Evanescence and tunneling have some interesting parameters.


Meteor break up and fireball link. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/348009
Greetings Lotek. What constitutes evidence of weather modification for You ?
Bryan


Do not be ashamed of confessing your past folly. I think a man who says, “I was
wrong,” really in effect says, “I am a little wiser to-day than I was yesterday.”
-Charles Spurgeon.
Wisdom is the compass by which man is to steer across the trackless waste of life; without it he
is a derelict vessel, the sport of winds and waves. -Charles Spurgeon
 

lotek

Active Member
there is a name for what you are doing here, lightly dismissing counterclaims and challenges against your cited info, then jumping around to newly provided stuff so as to never address anything in depth or fully cover it, the proper name for it happens to escape me now tho. its a long used technique in arguments based on logical fallacy.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/3698/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf

The link is a detailed paper on observations of gravity waves and climatology. It also discusses transfer functions at length.

Here's the abstract to that paper:

The only "climatology" it looks at is in the mesosphere - roughly 50-100 km in altitude. Specifically this paper loks at 70-96km altitude range.

It points out that gravity waves transfer energy FROM the lower atmosphere TO the mesosphere - but is completely silent on there being any exchange in the reverse direction:


Gravity wave breaking at 50-90km caused by instabilities can create secondary waves that propogate downwards.

I don't see that anywhere in that paper - indeed on the subject of weave braking it is clear that the energy is absorbed in the surrounding background medium:


That question (what medium) relates to why many people suggest that ionospheric heaters can't do much. If only a portion of the equation is examined, artificial heating doesn't do much. It is better that I point to the research to illustrate the energy involved. Evanescence and tunneling have some interesting parameters.

not mentioned in the paper either.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I may as well try and learn something here. If someone wants to give me the dummies guide to some terms -
What is plasma? What is a plasma sheet?
What is ionisation? I assume the ionosphere is exclusively made up of ionised material. What are its special properties? It's the sun's radiation that ionises it right?
What's a gravity wave? I can understand what seems to be a turbulence pattern of clouds around mountains, but what are the special properties of these waves? Air pressure only I would presume?
 

electrojet

New Member
http://arise-project.eu/atmospheric-dynamics.php graphic from the arise project link

Hi Mike,
The claim that requires addressing is the transmitters maximum power. The multiplication of power is not related to the transmitter's effective radiated power, it is related to the electron excitation or avalanching of electrons in the ionosphere. So you are right, the transmitter does not transmit more power. The transmitter simply excites electrons and the electrons begin a cascading energy event. I will go into this in depth. I will also concisely restate how gravity waves influence meridional circulation and the polar vortex. I will repost how atmospheric heaters/chemistry modifiers alter gravity waves, some of which originate in the troposphere and create gravity waves. I will excerpt statements that discuss these buoyancy waves link to circulation patterns since it is scientifically established that ionospheric heaters both create and alter theses waves.

Lotek, part of the problem is I have not even gotten to the good stuff! This is just a tiny slice of the capability pie. If I stop to address every counterclaim, it will just be fruitless. The claim of weather modification does not require either you or me.

Transmitters both alter and create buoyancy and acoustic waves.

These buoyancy waves influence and effect large scale circulation and effect weather systems.

This is in the scientific literature and can't be debunked. There is intense study and focus on this dynamic vertical coupling and there are literally hundreds of published studies detailing gravity waves linking with both terrestrial weather and space weather.

If I were to say, EISCAT caused a stratospheric sudden warming event last july 12th, or HAARP altered the meridional flow feb. 9-17th 2011, I would address all of your counter claims.

The claim I make is a blanket one, transmitter experiments alter weather. Specifically that transmitters change the altitude of gravity wave breaking. This wave breaking is inexorably linked to weather.

Meteors are identified as a source of gravity waves. The interest for me is the altitude that it is estimated it exploded, it's speed and the how that energy was transferred.

Bryan

“Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth, and that is that no instruction book came with it.” - R. Buckminster Fuller
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    58.6 KB · Views: 417

electrojet

New Member
Re; The claim I make is a blanket one, transmitter experiments alter weather. Specifically that transmitters change the altitude of gravity wave breaking. This wave breaking is inexorably linked to terrestrial weather.

“Love is omni-inclusive, progressively exquisite, understanding and compassionately attuned to other than self.”
― Richard Buckminster Fuller
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
If I stop to address every counterclaim, it will just be fruitless.
The claim of weather modification does not require either you or me.

Your claims require you to provide evidence and address counterclaims.
If you make claims without evidence and avoid the counterclaims then yes, your endeavor here will be fruitless.

Bryan, I have watched you play this game at contrailscience.com for about three years. It went nowhere, and now you are trying to play it here.
Fruitless.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
I may as well try and learn something here. If someone wants to give me the dummies guide to some terms -
What is plasma? What is a plasma sheet?
What is ionisation? I assume the ionosphere is exclusively made up of ionised material. What are its special properties? It's the sun's radiation that ionises it right?
What's a gravity wave? I can understand what seems to be a turbulence pattern of clouds around mountains, but what are the special properties of these waves? Air pressure only I would presume?

I've studied plasma physics a bit so I'll give it a shot.

Ionization:
A good place to start is with ionization. Atoms consist of a nucleus of positive protons and neutrons, surrounded by one or more layers of negative electrons. In neutral matter the positive protons and negative electrons are in balance. Ionization is when enough energy strips one or more electrons from the atom. The missing electron(s) creates a charge imbalance in the atom leaving it in a state of positive charge called an ion, the missing electron is known as a "free electron" and has a negative charge. Since all matter naturally seeks a lower energy state, ions and free electrons will recombine unless there is a persistent source of energy. Particle density will effect how rapidly recombination takes place with recombination happening faster as density increases.

Ionizing radiation:
The electromagnetic spectrum consists of ultra low frequency radio waves all the way up to gamma rays at the highest frequencies. A threshold exists within the ultraviolet band where the energy is high enough to strip electrons from atoms and cause ionization. Electromagnetic radiation at frequencies higher than UV-B is considered ionizing radiation. This is an important factor because frequencies in the radio band are not energetic enough to knock electrons free, thus radio waves will not ionize a neutral gas. So yes, UV and X-ray radiation from the sun are primarily responsible for ionizing the ionosphere.

Plasma:
Plasma is a gas where a certain percentage or threshold of ions and free electrons exist to cause the bulk of the gas to become an electrical conductor and respond to electric and magnetic fields, which is what gives plasma its special properties. The percent of ionization can be as low as 1% or so for an ionized gas to behave as plasma. Interestingly enough, the equations that describe plasma motion are the same equations that describe motions of neutral fluids, but with different variables. The ionosphere is a plasma but the percent that's ionized varies from as high as 100% to as low as the threshold between the plasma state and neutral gas state.

Plasma Sheet:
A Plasma Sheet is a layer, or sheet of denser plasma. Earths magnetic field is stretched into an elongated tail by the solar wind and there is a plasma sheet down the middle of the tail trapped along the "equator" of Earths magnetic field. For example, Saturn's rings are technically a "dusty" plasma sheet.

Gravity Waves:
Gravity waves occur when there is a disturbance in a fluid layer that gets pushed back down by gravity. Imagine an arbitrary line of equilibrium, convection pushes a bubble of atmosphere above equilibrium, gravity pushes it back down below equilibrium, it rebounds back up, gravity pushes down and it oscillates up and down until the energy is dissipated and equilibrium is reached again. When a bubble rises to the surface of a lake it produces ripples on the surface, those ripples are gravity waves. Now imagine a feather on the surface of those ripples and what effect it might have on the bottom of the lake a hundred feet below the surface ... that's about how much infinitesimally small of an effect perturbations in the ionosphere have on gravity waves to alter weather in the troposphere.
 

FuzzyUK

Active Member
Mr. Unregistered says: "Stop motion satellite imagery shows they turn these HAARP facilities on to coincide with heavy chemtrail spraying, the energy is directed at these aerosol clouds."

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.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
http://arise-project.eu/atmospheric-dynamics.php graphic from the arise project link

Hi Mike,
The claim that requires addressing is the transmitters maximum power. The multiplication of power is not related to the transmitter's effective radiated power, it is related to the electron excitation or avalanching of electrons in the ionosphere. So you are right, the transmitter does not transmit more power. The transmitter simply excites electrons and the electrons begin a cascading energy event. I will go into this in depth. I will also concisely restate how gravity waves influence meridional circulation and the polar vortex. I will repost how atmospheric heaters/chemistry modifiers alter gravity waves, some of which originate in the troposphere and create gravity waves. I will excerpt statements that discuss these buoyancy waves link to circulation patterns since it is scientifically established that ionospheric heaters both create and alter theses waves.

Lotek, part of the problem is I have not even gotten to the good stuff! This is just a tiny slice of the capability pie. If I stop to address every counterclaim, it will just be fruitless. The claim of weather modification does not require either you or me.

Transmitters both alter and create buoyancy and acoustic waves.

These buoyancy waves influence and effect large scale circulation and effect weather systems.

This is in the scientific literature and can't be debunked. There is intense study and focus on this dynamic vertical coupling and there are literally hundreds of published studies detailing gravity waves linking with both terrestrial weather and space weather.

If I were to say, EISCAT caused a stratospheric sudden warming event last july 12th, or HAARP altered the meridional flow feb. 9-17th 2011, I would address all of your counter claims.

The claim I make is a blanket one, transmitter experiments alter weather. Specifically that transmitters change the altitude of gravity wave breaking. This wave breaking is inexorably linked to weather.

Meteors are identified as a source of gravity waves. The interest for me is the altitude that it is estimated it exploded, it's speed and the how that energy was transferred.

Bryan

“Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth, and that is that no instruction book came with it.” - R. Buckminster Fuller

Pretty picture. Proves nothing. Have you any facts and can you cite scientific, peer-reviewed proof; some of your "hundreds of studies," or are you just wasting our time? I frankly don't care what YOU state. I want to see some real science put forth by sources with no dog in the hunt.
 

electrojet

New Member
Greetings,


Thanks Solrey, that is outstanding.


In response to Mike. Mike stated,
It points out that gravity waves transfer energy FROM the lower atmosphere TO the mesosphere - but is completely silent on there being any exchange in the reverse direction:
.


So here is another look at energy propagation illustrating energy transfer both upwards and downwards. In this paper detailing gravity waves that are generated by convection, secondary waves that propagate downwards are discussed. http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/download/16259/18166. Significant zonal wind flow changes as a result of gravity wave breaking is discussed.


This paper also details wave breaking, secondary waves propagating downwards and ducting. It is interesting to note that in this paper tunneling and ducting of waves is discussed in the stratosphere. An example of secondary waves moving downwards,
from page 2 of http://www.ee.psu.edu/directory/facultyinfo/pasko/publications/snivelyjgr082.pdf Again in this paper convective gravity waves are discussed. The paper discusses tunneling of gravity waves and ducting in depth. So the question arises, can ionospheric heaters cause tunneling of existing buoyancy/gravity waves?


How are gravity waves at altitudes of 50 - 90 km characterised ? As carriers of energy (simplified definition) that have very significant effects on weather. As detailed here from this examination of gravity waves from 2001.


from, http://www.physics.uwo.ca/~whocking/p103/grav_wav.html


The understranding of specific interactions of buoyancy waves and weather has grown tremendously in the last 12 years. Ionosperic heaters are modifying our weather. Not 'are capable of' and not 'some day in the future' and not 'this is just a thought experiment'. It is active weather modification.


Jay, greetings and well wishes to you. What portion of the weather modification via frequency transmitters do you specifically take issue with?


“I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare.” - C.S. Lewis
 

electrojet

New Member
Hi F4, Have you been reading the peer reviewed and published papers from this thread?

The links scientifically prove that bouyancy/gravity waves modify weather and climate and that HAARP/EISCAT and other facilities both modify and create gravity waves. What specifically do you feel has not been proven? Do you believe HAARP does not modify or create gravity waves?

thanks for the reply,

Bryan



“Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory---let the theory go.”
― Agatha Christie,
 

electrojet

New Member
Here is the vastly simplified version for weather modification. In the diagram rf heaters modify the electrodynamics of the upper atmosphere which is coupled with the dynamics and chemistry of both the middle and lower atmosphere.



God Bless,

Bryan
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but usually manages to pick himself up, walk over or around it, and carry on.
- Winston Churchill
The visible world is the invisible organization of energy.
- Physicist Heinz Pagels
It gives me a deep comforting sense that ‘things seen are temporal and things unseen are eternal.’
- Helen Keller
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    103 KB · Views: 347
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 352

Cairenn

Senior Member.
That is STILL not an explanation of how heating the upper atmosphere has more effect on weather that the heating of land and cities and ocean temps.
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
So that is a statement of your claim.
Can you give an example of where and when this has happened?
I'm looking for a place and a date, what "should" have happened, and what actually happened as a result of the weather modification.
Thanks.
:popcorn:

Re; The claim I make is a blanket one, transmitter experiments alter weather. Specifically that transmitters change the altitude of gravity wave breaking. This wave breaking is inexorably linked to terrestrial weather.

[snip]

So, again, can you provide a place and date/time when the weather was altered?
What was expected to happen (unaltered), and what actually happened... what aspect was "altered" and to what extent?

Thanks

Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Greetings,

In response to Mike. Mike stated, .


So here is another look at energy propagation illustrating energy transfer both upwards and downwards. In this paper detailing gravity waves that are generated by convection, secondary waves that propagate downwards are discussed. http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/download/16259/18166. Significant zonal wind flow changes as a result of gravity wave breaking is discussed.


This paper also details wave breaking, secondary waves propagating downwards and ducting. It is interesting to note that in this paper tunneling and ducting of waves is discussed in the stratosphere. An example of secondary waves moving downwards,
from page 2 of http://www.ee.psu.edu/directory/facultyinfo/pasko/publications/snivelyjgr082.pdf

Yes they moved downwards - but they "are captured" within the thermosphere - the "thermospheric duct" - they do not propagate down into lower levels of the atmosphere - it is right there in your extract.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
This image does not support the claim that ionospheric conditions affect weather, it shows mountain gravity waves in the troposphere affecting the jet stream at the interface of the troposphere and the stratosphere, but not above.

dlr.jpg
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Three Contrails "Descending" over Denver on Jan 31, 2021 [Military, C-17A Globemasters] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
S Lasers Making Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Curved and Looped Contrails in SoCal [San Diego Delays] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West Crazy Contrails from LAX Ground Stop Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
D Explained: Photo of 747 with Contrails Only on One Side [Fake, April Fool] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West Infrared Photos of Clouds and Contrails Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 17
Mick West Moonlight Contrails Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Aerodynamic Contrails at 27,000 to 31,000 feet near Sacramento Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
Trailblazer Sharp boundary between contrails and clear sky Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Mick West Plane Flies in Front of Super Blue Blood Moon Eclipse Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Clouds Givemethewillies Contrail lobes or mamma? The importance of correct terminology Contrails and Chemtrails 0
cloudspotter How Changing Weather Conditions Make Contrails Show Up Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Trailspotter Contrail cross over Tasmania and spinning contrails over Victoria Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Explained: Manurewa NZ, 'Extra-terrestrial' Fireball Jumps Up [Contrail, Altitude change] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Halifax, NS: Regularly Spaced Gaps in Contrails [Ethiopian Flight 501] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 47
Mick West Some Perspective on Perspective Foreshortening - Contrails and UFOs Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West Explained: Viral Video of 787 Leaving Thick Contrails with Forced Perspective Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West A Plane Flying Across the Face of the Sun, with Contrails [Virgin Flight 353] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
TEEJ Contrails filmed from commercial flight over the Irish Sea - 6th May 2017 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
ki_cz Contrails 'breaking up' clouds Contrails and Chemtrails 10
E Can someone tell me what these are? [Grid pattern contrails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
P Can someone please explain these trails at sunset [Contrails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
Mick West There Are No New Clouds, Just New Latin Classifications Contrails and Chemtrails 2
MikeC BBC: Biofuels 'could limit jet contrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West Spiral Contrails viewed from the International Space Station Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 12
ki_cz Claim: Satellite imagery showing 'sheet' of contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West GOES-16 Satellite Images of Contrails Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Explained: Contrails Appear "Hot" in Thermal Imaging because the Sky Appears Very Cold Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Mick West Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 186
Clouds Givemethewillies Why do inner contrails spread more than outer contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Mick West Contrails Hidden In 1950s and 1960s Family Photos Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
Mick West Four Engines, Flying West over Sacramento Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Clouds Givemethewillies Persistent Aerodynamic Contrails From Propellor Tips Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Mick West A Sunlit Contrail Viewed From the Side Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Mick West Close Up Videos of Contrails Forming And Evolving Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 19
Mick West Some "Black" Shadowed Aerodynamic Contrails Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 4
Mick West Relative Humidity at Flight Altitudes. Resources and Contrail prediction. Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West What's the Highest Contrail You've Taken a Photo Of? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Mick West P900 Plane and Contrails Photos and Video Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 17
Mick West Persistent Aerodynamic Contrail Forming @28,500 on 787 Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
steve holmes Problems with Identifying Contrails in FlightRadar24 Contrails and Chemtrails 57
Mick West Why Were There Contrails Today, But Not Yesterday? It's the Weather! Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Mick West How Do You Take Good Photos of High Altitude Planes and Contrails? Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Mick West Debunked: Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying [Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Contrails over Sting & Peter Gabriel Concert in Lake Tahoe Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Giant Dark Persistent Aerodynamic Contrail Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 6
Kaylene Contrails in USA vs. Austraila Contrails and Chemtrails 4
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top