China lightning kills record 141.....And guess what gets blamed.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I dont know if there are any cameras that allow them to be used with a flash trigger. I know there is a special remote trigger that reacts to lightning for that purpose.
I'm waiting for good night time thunder so I can set my camera to take long exposures with continous shooting for as long as I have battery power and enough room on the card. I plan to set my camera on F32, aperture priority, Iso 100 and continous shooting and lock down the wire trigger and then just wait.

nice! please post when you get some shots!

i was wondering about slow shutter and setting the digicam to auto-shoot in the rapid-fire option. (multiple shots back-to-back automated - can't remember the term)
i'm not a photog, (only pinhole for hobby)

I'm hoping to have a good thunder storm in conditions that dont have too much ambient light, a night time thunder being the ideal. I'll just have to wait and see and keep my gear ready. I'll have to remember to post them if I ever get them

This is the real Reason for this incident!



The only reason they blamed global warming is because they were ashamed that they didnt get the world record!

According to the China Meteorological Administration (CMA), 141 people died in lightning strikes in July.

China's top meteorological official blamed global warming for the extreme seasonal weather.

It's called natural selection.
Weeding out those, that are not intelligent enough to come in out of the rain.

I know that China can make it rain by throwing up some chemicals into the sky, obviously more than that, but thats the jist of it. So why carnt they figure out how to keep it sunny, or maybe theyve done this to there selves, to much weather modification.

take Care, Vix

Originally posted by darkheartrising
i've tried to set up my camera with a slave drive flash and use the lightning as the driver instead of another flash...it should work but i haven't got it to work...looks good in theory doesn't it?

Wouldn't you just get a nice picture of sky just after the lightning? (i've seen some strikes on TV that have been quite a long duration - sorta seems to pulse twice but the strikes i've witnessed are extremely quick)

But there again the most interesting thing I ever did with a camera was a few very long exposure shots of stars on a moonless night on Dartmoor.

Edit: PsykoOps - your avatar is particularly appropriate for this thread - "When you see the flash its already too late"

[edit on 3/8/2007 by Now_Then]

Originally posted by evilod

Originally posted by Now_Then
Hasn't China got the most active weather control program going - off the top of my head they've even got a government minister for weather modification.

You are right. In fact, they are guaranteeing sunny skies during the Olympics next year. Here are a few stats about their program.

According to Wang Guanghe, director of the Weather Modification Department under the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, each of China's more than 30 provinces and province-level municipalities today boast a weather-modification base, employing more than 32,000 people, 7,100 anti-aircraft guns, 4,991 special rocket launchers and 30-odd aircraft across the country.

www.atimes.com...

I would argue that sudden changes in any type of weather phenomenon simply cannot be attributed to global warming. Why would a gradual increase in CO2 in our atmosphere over the past century or so cause a sudden change, right now? Would it not have been gradually changing our climate over this time period?

So, if the number of deaths by lightning in China were, in fact, unusually high in last month, it is ridiculous to attribute it to global warming. Does it sound more logical to blame a sudden regional spike in the number of lightning deaths on a gradual increase of CO2 levels over the past century, or does it make more sense to question whether the government's Weather Modification Department may have a role in the increase of lightning?

Personally, I am not convinced that storms, overall, are any stronger or more frequent than usual. By usual, I mean in terms of what I have known throughout my life and, more importantly, what the Earth has seen throughout its own life. Geology indicates that the Earth has always had natural cycles that directly impact the climate. Who are we to think that we are just now causing the Earth to undergo changes unlike ever before?

With that being said, do I feel that the efforts to curb global warming are a good thing. Absolutely. Raping the Earth...

Sorry if this came off as a rant.

Evilod, can I ask you a question?
Do you believe our government has nuclear weapons and can use them?

nixie_nox - I think your quote may be cut out by the mods, cos they're doin quite a bit of that for long quotes.

But which govt did you mean? Are you in China?

Now and then,

It is showing up for me? It was just a reply to someone.

I mean any government,especially US.

Sorry if you took any offence

Just wondering where you was from - i'm in the UK

This seems to be the general consensus of the spread of nukes.

Country


Warheads

United States 10,455

Russia 8,400

China 400

France 350

Israel* 250

United Kingdom 200

India** 65

Pakistan** 40

North Korea*** 8

TOTAL 20,168 link

* Israel has a policy called "nuclear opacity" or "nuclear ambiguity," which consists of refusing to confirm or deny that it has nuclear weapons at all. In 1986, however, whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli nuclear weapons worker, published pictures of nuclear weapons facilities in Israel. Today, experts agree that Israel has between 100 and 300 warheads (and Israel doesn't deny it).

** India and Pakistan both admit (boast?) that they have weapons, but are cagey about how many. Estimates for India run from 40 to 90 and for Pakistan from 30 to 50.

*** North Korea is anybody's guess. At the end of 2003, U.S. intelligence experts were surmising it had three bombs, but four months later they tentatively raised their estimate to eight. They also said North Korea is geared up to build about six bombs a year from here on out.

As regards willingness to use them - well, they wern't made to be works of art, I doubt the next nuke will be from any of the govts in the list up there, but sure as hell the one after that will be!

Nixie,
Whether you were referring to the US or China (as I'm not sure which country you meant), my answer is yes, without a doubt.

That sounded like a rhetorical question though, because I always thought it was fairly well established which countries had, or at least had the capability to produce, nuclear weapons. Of course, there's always the possibility that countries without the facilities to make nukes could acquire them from others that did. However, I would question how well that information could be kept secret. So, I guess I'm curious as to why you asked.

Im telling you guys, theres no need to go into it, just take one look at that picture and tell me you still dont understand.....

I've noticed an increase in lightning storms here in the south of the UK, and density in said storms of lightning bolts, over the past year or so. I've thought about without any external influence so it was a surprise to read some of the comments in this thread.

I wonder if messing about with the ionosphere can have such effects as these.

Weather seems to go in cycles........when we moved here 25 years ago we were in a more violent cycle, with severe storms, more wind damage and more lightning strikes. We lost three tall trees to strikes within a three or four year period, had the electric fencing struck twice, and lost several televisions and modems when it 'ran into' the house.

After about 10 years, things calmed down, particularly the lightning strikes. We haven't had a tree struck in quite a long time, even the tall ones with 'wet feet' have escaped.

Originally posted by evilod
Nixie,
Whether you were referring to the US or China (as I'm not sure which country you meant), my answer is yes, without a doubt.

That sounded like a rhetorical question though, because I always thought it was fairly well established which countries had, or at least had the capability to produce, nuclear weapons. Of course, there's always the possibility that countries without the facilities to make nukes could acquire them from others that did. However, I would question how well that information could be kept secret. So, I guess I'm curious as to why you asked.

Sorry I am late. Got distracted.


The reason I am pointing this out is that most people believe that governments, especially ours, European,US, whomever, have nuclear capabilities. the country isn't the issue.

If a nuclear war were to break out, these same people believe that a nuclear winter can result. Just an exchange between US and Russia can result in a nuclear winter in the northern hemisphere, that could take months or years to clear up. A nuclear warhead has the same effects and power of a large volcanic eruption, causing a total disrruption to the climate.

My point is this: why is it so easy to believe that we have capabilities to launch the planet into a nuclear winter dropping the temperature between 10-20 degrees in a matter of minutes.

Yet, feel that 6 billion people, and a 150 years of industry/pollution/draining of resources, can't cause global warming.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
My point is this: why is it so easy to believe that we have capabilities to launch the planet into a nuclear winter dropping the temperature between 10-20 degrees in a matter of minutes.

Yet, feel that 6 billion people, and a 150 years of industry/pollution/draining of resources, can't cause global warming.

How would we drop the temp in a matter of minutes?

We could raise temps very significantly in localised areas extremely quickly - lots of nukes have been set off already - I can see a crack in your argument, but it goes against my beliefs. Here goes any who:

6 billion people cause all that damage in 150 years, vs more than 2,072 tests (don't forget the 2 used in anger - god rest) and thats what we know about link

Should we just not thin out the population a wee bit by nuking them??

Nukeing stuff seems to be doing a bit less damage than all of those nasty 6 billion don't you think?

Tongue in cheek here - but the GW lot have let the Quiche go to their brains - numbers are easy to mess with.

[edit on 5/8/2007 by Now_Then]

Ok, I see what you're saying, Nixie. It may have come off that I deny the possibility that we affect our climate. This is not the case, however, I was more or less questioning the degree and rate at which we are affecting it. Personally, so far, I feel that what humans have attributed to global warming has been little more than slightly accelerating what was already part of a natural cycle.

Truths can be manipulated to lie and mislead, and it seems it has become fashionable to charge global warming for all sorts of, what is being touted as, unusually harsh weather phenomena. For example, note that China only started keeping records for lightning strike deaths in 2000. So, it may be true to say that last month was the highest number of lightning deaths on record, but we're not dealing with a whole lot of data here. To say that global warming must be the reason is kind of jumping the gun, or possibly diverting attention away from what may be the real culprit.

Either way, it would still just be speculation in claiming that it was global warming's fault. In my opinion, the following seems to be a more realistic conclusion.

Regional officials told Xinhua that most of this year's deaths have involved local farmers who were unaware of the storms' potential danger.

Those officials also cited a lack of available shelter throughout the region as a significant cause for the increased number of lightning-based deaths.

Science Daily

edit: grammar

[edit on 6-8-2007 by evilod]

[edit on 6-8-2007 by evilod]

Originally posted by evilod


Truths can be manipulated to lie and mislead, and it seems it has become fashionable to charge global warming for all sorts of, what is being touted as, unusually harsh weather phenomena. For example, note that China only started keeping records for lightning strike deaths in 2000. So, it may be true to say that last month was the highest number of lightning deaths on record, but we're not dealing with a whole lot of data here. To say that global warming must be the reason is kind of jumping the gun, or possibly diverting attention away from what may be the real culprit.

Either way, it would still just be speculation in claiming that it was global warming's fault. In my opinion, the following seems to be a more realistic conclusion.

Regional officials told Xinhua that most of this year's deaths have involved local farmers who were unaware of the storms' potential danger.

Those officials also cited a lack of available shelter throughout the region as a significant cause for the increased number of lightning-based deaths.

Science Daily

I see. Your saying everyone shouldn't jump on the green colored band wagon and every phenomenon can't be linked with global warming.

And I agree with this. Just like so many other issues, if it gets played out too much, people will get de-sensitized and stop listening.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by nixie_nox]

How would we drop the temp in a matter of minutes?
We could raise temps very significantly in localised areas extremely quickly - lots of nukes have been set off already - I can see a crack in your argument, but it goes against my beliefs. Here goes any who:
6 billion people cause all that damage in 150 years, vs more than 2,072 tests (don't forget the 2 used in anger - god rest) and thats what we know about

link
Should we just not thin out the population a wee bit by nuking them??
Nukeing stuff seems to be doing a bit less damage than all of those nasty 6 billion don't you think?

Yes, there may have been 2000+ tests, but not all at the same time. We wouldn't be having this conversation if there was. Since 1963 all tests have to be conducted underground so that atmoshere and water won't be contaminated. There hasn't been much testing since the 90s.So why did they have an international treaty to only test underground?
What I am referring to is a war of more then one bomb. In minutes, a person can change everything as we know it picking up the receiver of a little shiny red phone.I am not going to split hairs with you on how many nuclear bombs it would take to cause a nuclear winter. The nuclear winter was studied on the premise that it would be on a war, not a test of a single bomb. My point is that most people believe that our governments have the capablility of destroying entire nations if they choose to do so, yet think that we can't throw fragile ecosystems out of whack.Causing a chain reaction much like that of a bomb, because it is over time.
My husband is also one of those who think we could lose a few billion people. Because he thinks it will happen in a far off place. It is not his mother, his wife, or his son. I want this to be a better place for my child. I want him to see the Grand Canyon without a pollution haze obscurring the view. I want him to have safe water and unpoisoned food.
If you had one poacher in the savannah winging a game dart at an elephant once a month. The elephant might be agitated, but alive and fine.Even if you throw the occassional lawn dart at it. You have 100 poachers over a month throwing darts at an elephant, it might be sick and wounded. It you have 100 poachers throw darts at an elephant all day, it is going to die. We are the 100 poachers a month. The elephant recovers but a little less each time till it dies.
Our planet is not as big as everyone likes to think it is. We can fly around it in a day. We can instantly communicate in seconds.
It does not take much to affect things. Ecosystems are more closely linked then people think.
We all know the story of the American bufffalo. There were 25 -30 million buffalo roaming the plains. They were slaughtered to extinction for leather. The displacement, death, and practical annihilation of Native Americans and their cultures according to www.american.edu The part that a lot of people don't hear is that many of the little prairie towns started experiencing flood. Prairie grass is thick and mostly impermeable to rain. Like concrete.When the buffalo herds ran across the prairie, their cloven hooves dug into the prairie, causing divets that allowed the rain water to pass underground. No buffalo, no divets, causing flash flooding. tHis was done by a few dumb cowboys with shotguns in the 1800s. Imagine all the small damages like this worlwide, in the past 120 years.
If I hear the ace age heat up theory one more time I could scream. I learned this in high school ecology. Ice ages last 100kyears. The world heats up, then freezes. But this happens in millenias, not decades. When has our world done anything fast? Our great,great,great grandchildren may start to feel the effects.We should not be witnessing them right now. We shouldn't be having 30 out of 45 states in a draught. While yes, some temps may be natural, but only miniscule.