Is HAARP feeding SANDY? (The Conspiracy Side)

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


What about this?

HAARP could be used to direct a concentration of several arrays of directed electromagnetic energy directly at the oceans surface in the "Path" that "They" want the hurricane to take.

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

His last 2 years produced 3 parts of information that are difficult to deal with.

What is difficult to deal with?

Talking points of Eastlund's lecture question several things, including whether ionospheric waves could have weather control applications. Without knowing what he actually said about those things, it's a little far fetched to say there is something "difficult to deal with" about them. He made similar speculations in his ionospheric modification patent. Just because he speculated about it, doesn't make it true. It certainly doesn't mean it is being done.

The first paper you cite talks about the possibility of gravity waves in the troposphere affecting the lower ionosphere. Not the reverse. Look at the title:

Vertical flux of energy into the lower ionosphere from internal gravity waves generated in the troposphere

www.agu.org...

The second paper you cite talks about gravity waves being produced in the ionosphere by solar activity. It says nothing about the influence of such waves on the troposphere.

You want some "brand new" information? Never before seen on ATS? (Do you think ATS is the only source of information in the world?)
Here's some very recent research which shows that HAARP can, in fact, induce gravity waves in the F2 layer, the highest region of the ionosphere. It's interesting because it opens up the possibility of being able to study the connections between activity in the upper ionosphere and the regions above it.
www.agu.org...

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

What about this?

HAARP could be used to direct a concentration of several arrays of directed electromagnetic energy directly at the oceans surface in the "Path" that "They" want the hurricane to take.

Here is the entire quote, in context.

The information of beam steering in the refractive regions of the ionosphere that were gleaned and categorized by the HAARP could be used to direct a concentration of several arrays of directed electromagnetic energy directly at the oceans surface in the "Path" that "They" want the hurricane to take.

The increase in energy imparted to the ocean water would liberate more moisture into the air, and also heat the water vapor within the atmosphere.

This increased energy of the water vapor, and "Path of Increased Water Vapor" could be used to steer an already forming storm front, or several, into a hurricane.

So, I clearly stated that by controlling what parts of the ocean have their temperature raised, and thus have more water vapour added into them, that they could induce the storm to "Move" in that direction.

Of course, it's all horribly more complex than this simple analogy, but the analogy still stands.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Basically, what I am saying, is that the "Storm" itself, is not actually the pressure front.... it is just a location WITHIN the pressure front that has lots of moisture in the air.

You are wrong. A hurricane is not a "pressure" front (what's a "pressure front"). A hurricane is a low pressure region and like any low pressure region, cold and warm fronts spin off of it. The low is the source of the front. It is the convergence of high and low pressure systems where fronts form. The storm is the low pressure area.
www.4physics.com...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

So, I clearly stated that by controlling what parts of the ocean have their temperature raised, and thus have more water vapour added into them, that they could induce the storm to "Move" in that direction.

A storm does not follow water vapor like a bird following a trail of bread crumbs. The movement of the low pressure area is determined by other factors.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

So, I clearly stated that by controlling what parts of the ocean have their temperature raised, and thus have more water vapour added into them, that they could induce the storm to "Move" in that direction.

I don't think that could steer a hurricane and certainly could not cause it to cross a high pressure boundary.

reply to post by Phage

You are wrong. A hurricane is not a "pressure" front (what's a "pressure front"). A hurricane is a low pressure region and like any low pressure region, cold and warm fronts spin off of it. The low is the source of the front. It is the convergence of high and low pressure systems where fronts form. The storm is the low pressure area.

It's so nice of you to stay completely outside of any debate until you find a single little area to nit pick, and then to full scale attack that person with "You're Wrong"

Let me tell you why YOU are wrong, *PHAGE*

A hurricane is a thermal.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Warm moist air rises, and leaves colder, low pressure air underneath it.

The warm air thermal carries water vapour with it, and when the thermal reaches high enough in the atmosphere, the water cools, condenses, and falls back down as rain.

The movement of the water causes a slight movement of air around the thermal in the downward direction.

Normally, all of this thermal movement is masked by the accumulated condensation in the atmosphere... known as the storm.... but I am not discussing the hurricane as a meteorologist.... I am discussing it as an engineer who is familiar with thermodynamics, and the vapour point of water.

Anyway, in a large enough thermal system, the falling condensed water forms clouds in an expanding area around the thermal.

The Coriolis effect begins (it effects everything, actually.... but it starts building up more and more as the condensation area increases in size) and thus begins a sort of upside down funnel effect, where warm moist surface air is drawn into the centre of the thermal, and rises upwards (like an upside down water vortex, only with warm air rising)

The water vapour in the rising vortex cools, and adds to the clouds outside the thermal, which causes a secondary "Sinking" effect around the outside of the central thermal.

This in turn draws in more warm moist air to the central thermal, increasing the power of the entire heat engine cycle, so long as the system is over warm water.

Now, when you say that a hurricane is not a "Pressure Front" you are mistaken, because there are areas of high pressure, and low pressure within the hurricane, and corresponding high and low temperature systems as well.

The "Fronts" are not horizontal... but vertical, which is why you got so confused.

But I can see now that you and your cronies are tag teaming me....


Tell me, *PHAGE* did it work out like you hoped it would?

reply to post by Phage

A storm does not follow water vapor like a bird following a trail of bread crumbs. The movement of the low pressure area is determined by other factors.

The storm *IS* the water vapor... the pressure fronts are inconsequential.

What do you think a cloud is?

Do you think that clouds are areas of low pressure in the atmosphere?

Seriously?

No... Clouds are areas of MOISTURE *WITHIN* low pressure areas of the atmosphere.


Telling me that storms don't follow areas of moisture, is like telling me that humans aren't made of mostly water.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

I don't think that could steer a hurricane and certainly could not cause it to cross a high pressure boundary.

What you think is irrelevant, and I never said anything about crossing a high pressure boundary.

reply to post by Phage


It wasn't me citing them, it was Eastlund citations from 2005. I am only the proxy citer, the messenger relaying this to you.

Don't confuse that with other more personal standings, like when I pointed out NASA citing the paper on 22-year hurricane sun cycle influence and you went silent.

I usually post for 2 reasons - either as a messenger to point(at times with key information glossed over) or in a normal way.

But I'm grateful to see that you found that recent 2012 publication, includes Air Force Kirtland authors to make it better.

The purpose for Eastlund to cite the old 1962 paper is related to the power argument, 3.6 MW as incapable of much according to sceptics, but it was significant to an US Navy researcher at the time.

Gossard today is retired and last position was with NOAA.

The 2nd paper Eastlund cited has everything to do with HAARP.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

It's so nice of you to stay completely outside of any debate until you find a single little area to nit pick, and then to full scale attack that person with "You're Wrong"

Are you saying that quote was not integral to your argument.

Now, when you say that a hurricane is not a "Pressure Front" you are mistaken, because there are areas of high pressure, and low pressure within the hurricane, and corresponding high and low temperature systems as well.

The "Fronts" are not horizontal... but vertical, which is why you got so confused.

Perhaps it was your creative use of the term "front" which confused me. Tell me though, can you provide a map of a hurricane which shows a high pressure area within it? Vertical or otherwise? The charts for various levels in Sandy sure aren't showing any.

Thank you for the rundown on how a hurricane works. You still haven't explained why a hurricane would follow a trail of increased water vapor.
You also said a storm was nothing but a moist area within a front. That doesn't seem to jibe with your explanation.

reply to post by Phage

Are you saying that quote was not integral to your argument.

Are you saying that you represented my argument accurately, instead of straw manning my position?

Perhaps it was your creative use of the term "front" which confused me. Tell me though, can you provide a map of a hurricane which shows a high pressure area within it? Vertical or otherwise? The charts for various levels in Sandy sure aren't showing any.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Thank you for the rundown on how a hurricane works. You still haven't explained why a hurricane would follow a trail of increased water vapor.

That's because a hurricane IS water vapour... all storms are.

The clouds you see is just CONDENSED water vapour (condensation due to a pressure/temperature change)

You also said a storm was nothing but a moist area within a front. That doesn't seem to jibe with your explanation.

A hurricane has a high pressure front (the Eye, moving upwards) and a low pressure front (the condensation moving downwards)

That answer your question?

reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo

Don't confuse that with other more personal standings, like when I pointed out NASA citing the paper on 22-year hurricane sun cycle influence and you went silent.

I try to avoid getting personal. I don't recall you providing such a link to NASA but I do remember this. It seems I did reply.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 2nd paper Eastlund cited has everything to do with HAARP.

It does? Does it mention HAARP? It seems to concern the effect of the solar wind on the ionosphere. But the paper I cited actually does have something to do with HAARP.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Are you saying that you represented my argument accurately, instead of straw manning my position?

Yes. Are you saying you didn't say that storms are steered by water vapor levels?

That's because a hurricane IS water vapour... all storms are.

They are a bit more than that.

A hurricane has a high pressure front (the Eye, moving upwards) and a low pressure front (the condensation moving downwards)

The eye of a hurricane is the region of lowest pressure.

The eye is the region of lowest surface pressure and warmest temperatures aloft - the eye temperature may be 10 C [18 F] warmer or more at an altitude of 12 km [8 mi] than the surrounding environment, but only 0-2 C [0-3 F] warmer at the surface (Hawkins and Rubsam 1968) in the tropical cyclone.

www.gohsep.la.gov...

Now, in the vertical realm, above the storm and separate from it a high pressure region will build. But I don't see what that has to do with water vapor steering the storm.

Imma just sit back and watch the intellect vs the ignorant. So far, the intellectual side is winning. Unfortunately, that side, is not fan favorite. We're wrong....and he's always right.

All i know is this.....Hurricane Sandy is doin' her own thing! I suppose. I guess she does like land!

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
So, I clearly stated that by controlling what parts of the ocean have their temperature raised, and thus have more water vapour added into them, that they could induce the storm to "Move" in that direction.

Of course, it's all horribly more complex than this simple analogy, but the analogy still stands.

New problem: using the entire output of the HAARP's generator complex, how many degrees could they heat one cubic kilometer of sea water in a year?

Simplifying assumptions: I'll let you skip out on calculating the path loss of actually using the transmitter. If you applied the generator output to the seawater directly, neglecting all radiative, convective, or conductive losses, how much can the generators heat the water over, say, a year?

reply to post by Phage

Yes.

i'll correct you later.

They are a bit more than that.

hahahaha... so they are... but the visible storm is the water vapor.

The pressure differentials and temperature differentials mean nothing without water vapor.

Hence, storms are water vapor.

A hurricane has a high pressure front (the Eye, moving upwards) and a low pressure front (the condensation moving downwards)

The eye of a hurricane is the region of lowest pressure.

Yes, I should have clarified.... the walls of the eye are high pressure, while further out is low pressure.

This sets up a convection cell that is toroidal in shape.

Now, in the vertical realm, above the storm and separate from it a high pressure region will build. But I don't see what that has to do with water vapor steering the storm.

The water vapor has mass, thermal energy, etcetera.

The difference between high and low pressure cells is merely temperature.

Hence, water vapor (Thermal energy and mass) can alter the path of the Water Vapor Convection cell.

Premise understood?

reply to post by Bedlam

New problem: using the entire output of the HAARP's generator complex, how many degrees could they heat one cubic kilometer of sea water in a year?

Strawmanning me, I see.....

I never stated that the HAARP gakona facility was involved... read back to what I actually said, and THEN ask me a question.

As for now.. I see no point in discussing your presumption of my position any further.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Bedlam

 

New problem: using the entire output of the HAARP's generator complex, how many degrees could they heat one cubic kilometer of sea water in a year?

Strawmanning me, I see.....

I never stated that the HAARP gakona facility was involved... read back to what I actually said, and THEN ask me a question.

As for now.. I see no point in discussing your presumption of my position any further.

Not a strawman at all. YOU are claiming that ionospheric heaters such as HAARP can heat the ocean in such a way as to cause significant changes in the level of water vapor. I invite you to do a tiny bit of maths.

I doubt you're up to it, though. It's so much more FUN to speculate wildly!

edit: if you like, instead of using the power output of the HAARP facility, try subbing in the entire generating capacity of the US, and go for, say, 10 cubic km of seawater over a year.

second edit: you do realize that "The information of beam steering in the refractive regions of the ionosphere that were gleaned and categorized by the HAARP could be used to direct a concentration of several arrays of directed electromagnetic energy directly at the oceans surface in the "Path" that "They" want the hurricane to take." doesn't actually make sense, right? At least not in any technically valid way.

And any source that uses the term "the HAARP" should fill you with the same amount of trust as does someone who says "nukular".

reply to post by Phage


It was down in the same page you gave

NASA/TP—2011–216466

An Estimate of the North Atlantic Basin
Tropical Cyclone Activity for the 2011
Hurricane Season

Robert M. Wilson
Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

June 2011

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110012694_2011013238.pdf

(...)

Since about 1995 (16 seasons), the yearly frequency of tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Basin has been greater, on average, than during the earlier interval 1950–1994 (45 seasons).1–14 In particular, the mean yearly (seasonal) frequency of tropical cyclones is now about 54% greater than what occurred during the earlier interval, the mean yearly frequency of hurricanes is about 41% greater, the mean yearly frequency of major or intense hurricanes is about 63% greater, and the mean yearly frequency of land-falling hurricanes along the coastline of the United States (U.S.) is about 30% greater. How long this current interval of increased yearly frequencies will persist is unknown, possibly being related to whether the increased activity is due to a natural multidecadal-scale variation, the result of ongoing climatic change (i.e., the warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and ocean temperatures), or a combination of both.15–38

During the 2010 hurricane season,39 19 tropical cyclones formed in the North Atlantic Basin, including 12 hurricanes and 5 major hurricanes (i.e., those of category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which have a sustained peak wind speed (PWS) ≥96 kt, or ≥111 mph). Fortunately, no U.S. land-falling hurricanes occurred, with the year 2010 becoming the 5th year since 1995 and the 13th year since 1950 that had no tropical cyclones striking the U.S. coastline as hurricanes.

(...)

38. Mendoza, B.; and Pazos, M.: “A 22 Yr Hurricane Cycle and Its Relation with Geomagnetic Activity,” J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys., Vol. 71, p. 2047, 2009.

It does? Does it mention HAARP? It seems to concern the effect of the solar wind on the ionosphere. But the paper I cited actually does have something to do with HAARP.

The 2000 paper was about a solar flare triggering Joule Heating in the ionosphere, that can be directly applied to HAARP.

Are you saying HAARP can't do Joule Heating?

That's new information because researchers found Joule Heating from HAARP.

Eastlund himself takes the 2000 paper as implying just that and that HAARP does perform Joule Heating , why would he write

-Can Gravity Waves Produced By Joule Heating with HAARP Propagate Into Mid-Latitude Regions?

so the theoretical unanswered question is propagation, not that it can't do it.