|
|
weatherman714
tagged & banned
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 953
Location: Maryland |
lmao rotf....
 Mon May 28, 2007 9:08 pm
|
 |
|
quote:
714, you do not have a formula for that kind of stuff. You are def not as smart as me to do so, and were not struck by lightning in term for your brain to work 3X faster than normal to produce mass math calculations in that pity head of yours.
Do a first transformation of...
L{(e^(5t))*t^3}
quote:
I decided not to respond in here because no one has given proof of the existance of these trails. I've seen them before 1990's. Settled and that is that.
I kicked his a** on the other thread labeled USAF plans to drench Southeastern US. I used model data to clearly show chemtrails exists.
"Scientists flirt with weather management"
(Source: Christian Science Monitor, 1/2/03)
On Sept. 11, 1992, hurricane Iniki slammed into the Hawaiian island of
Kauai, packing winds gusting up to 175 mph. The storm inflicted an
estimated $2 billion in damage and 105 casualties, damaged or
destroyed 10,000 homes and businesses, and left once-lush tropical
mountainsides looking as though they'd been mowed by a giant
weed-whacker.
Ross Hoffman, an atmospheric scientist, looks back on the tragedy and
asks a daring question: What might it have taken to nudge the
hurricane's track 70 miles farther west - just enough to avoid the
damage and casualties the storm left in its wake?
Over the past two decades, the idea of modifying large-scale storms
such as hurricanes has lain dormant, following 20 years of
inconclusive research. Now, however, a small group of atmospheric
scientists is giving the concept a fresh look.
Armed with a deeper understanding of how the storms and atmosphere
work and with more sophisticated tools to measure and model
atmospheric conditions, these scientists are seeking to move from Mark
Twain's lament that no one does anything about the weather toward
science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's vision of modifying weather
for humanity's benefit.
It is a long-term vision, acknowledges Hoffman, a vice president with
Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., a research and
consulting firm in Lexington, Mass. Tugging on a hurricane's
atmospheric reins is at least 30 to 40 years away, he estimates.
Others, such as Massachusetts Institute of Technology atmospheric
scientist Kerry Emanuel, suggest such capabilities are "perhaps 100
years out."
"Before we can really control weather," Hoffman says, "we have to be
able to observe the weather and forecast the weather much better than
we do now."
More broadly, he adds, society must grapple with an increasingly
common question as science places in human hands the ability to
manipulate a range of physical processes at their most fundamental
levels: "Even if we can do this, is this something we really want to
do?"
Indeed, humans have been modifying weather inadvertently as well as
intentionally for decades. For example, researchers in 1998 and 1999
looked at the impact of air pollution over the Indian Ocean. They
found an unexpectedly large amount of pollution, including dark soot
and the much tinier dark aerosols, over the northern Indian Ocean. The
soot came from burning coal and wood and from inefficiently burned
diesel fuel on the Indian subcontinent. Researchers discovered that
the soot and dark aerosols reradiated heat from the sun, drying out
the surrounding air and suppressing cloud formation.
Meanwhile, according to the United Nations' World Meteorological
Organization (WMO), at least 25 countries are engaged in weather
modification projects to enhance rain and snowfall, or suppress hail.
In the United States, 12 states have had weather modification
programs. Texas runs a program at the county level for rain
enhancement, while North Dakota is focusing on hail suppression.
These efforts have grown out of research dating back to the late
1940s, when scientists first discovered that dry ice and silver iodide
particles could act as seeds to stimulate droplet formation in clouds.
While the concept has been easy to demonstrate in the lab, meeting the
same level of scientific proof in the field has been more difficult.
A range of studies over the years has cast doubts on cloud-seeding
techniques, especially the use of dry ice particles. Natural
variability in clouds and rainfall make it hard to verify
scientifically if seeding is having any affect, says Brant Foote,
director of the research applications program at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
Researchers seeded hurricanes in a 20-year federal research project
dubbed Project Storm Fury. Scientists were testing the idea that
seeding could be used to take some of the punch out of hurricanes
before they made landfall. But the program foundered on inconclusive
results.
Federal funds for weather-modification research have dried up as well.
According to Colorado State University atmospheric scientist William
Cotton, federal dollars for weather modification research peaked at
roughly $19 million a year in the 1970s. They dropped to less than $5
million a year during the '90s, and now hover at about $500,000.
The field has entered what Cotton calls the "dark ages," where
weather-modification programs are forging ahead with little or no
scientific research programs to back them. The efforts are driven by
dwindling groundwater supplies in many parts of the world, along with
the demands growing populations are placing on rivers and reservoirs.
Yet, some analysts say, the science behind climate and meteorology has
advanced to the point where weather modification deserves another,
closer look.
"We know so much more about the physics, and computer modeling is so
much better, that it's time to revisit the subject," says James Baker,
former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Before leaving office, Baker commissioned a National Research Council
study on weather-modification science and future research needs. The
results are due by April.
In the meantime, researchers are finding funds where they can.
Hoffman, for example, has drawn funding from the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration's Institute for Advanced Concepts in Atlanta
for modeling studies he and his colleagues have been carrying out on
hurricane Iniki. "We're not aiming to eliminate hurricanes, but to
control their paths so they do not strike population centers," he
says.
Initial results in a "proof of concept" simulation suggest that Iniki
could have been nudged sufficiently with one-time changes in sea-level
temperatures and winds roughly 30 hours before landfall. To trigger
those changes artificially in one shot, however, "would take way too
much energy.... It's unrealistic," Hoffman acknowledges.
He adds, however, that any operational system for steering severe
storms would likely make several less energy-intensive changes as time
progresses. A second round of modeling now under way is aimed at more
clearly identifying the energy needs such efforts might require.
MIT's Emanuel notes that while some of the approaches to delivering or
removing the energy needed to shift weather systems are exotic, they
needn't be.
Even a 1 degree Celsius change in temperature can have a large effect
over time, he notes. That change could be achieved by having aircraft
lay out "black contrails" - thin manmade clouds - roughly 600 miles
long and 60 miles wide to cool the atmosphere beneath by obscuring
sunlight. Yet as researchers weigh the scientific and technical
aspects of large-scale weather modification, they remain mindful of
its two-edged nature.
Hoffman notes that during the Vietnam War, the U.S. military seeded
monsoon clouds in Operation Popeye in an attempt to use weather to
hamper troop and supply movements along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. When
information about the program was declassified in the mid-1970s, the
international community established the U.N. Convention on the
Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques.
Several scientific bodies, such as the WMO and the U.S. American
Meteorological Society, have issued cautionary policy statements on
weather modification.
But Hoffman notes that a broader discussion is needed as technologies
emerge that make large-scale weather modification possible. "If these
trends continue, in a few decades we'll have all the parts we need to
put a system together."
The ethical and legal implications are vast, he says. "Any change in
weather helps some people and hurts others. Cost versus benefit is a
difficult question. Is this something we want to do?" |
| |
|
|
weatherman714
tagged & banned
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 953
Location: Maryland |
|
Mon May 28, 2007 9:24 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KevinMartin
714, quit stealing the GFS data and calling it your own. I saw it in the 384 hour GFS forecasts as a pattern change coming. Get with the program. You may learn a heap from me as the only Weather Savant the world has, and NAMED it by doctor.
Notwithstanding these advances, no verifiable skill exists or is likely to exist for forecasting day-to-day weather changes beyond two weeks. Claims to the contrary should be viewed with skepticism.
- American Meteorological Society (AMS) policy statement on weather analysis and forecasting.
384 hours is 16 days... I've caught you in several lies already and so have other members of this board. If you really saw that you wouldn't have waited 48hrs to comment on it. You even admited it was only"hinting" at it, Which clearly means you weren't sure it was going to happen and didn't expect it. You and your storm chaser buddies were freaking out about that hint in the models, but weren't sure. Therefore you have no right to those claims.
There's no way with your limited capacity you saw that. If your brain was as ramped up as you claim, seeing chemtrails would be easy as eating a piece of cake.
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/statewaf.html |
| |
|
|
KevinMartin
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 159
|
|
Mon May 28, 2007 9:55 pm
|
|
|
You obviously do not, and won't ever get it.
16 day model CAN SHOW PATTERN CHANGES.
In fact they show them very well.
They do not show actual storm systems will, such as shortwaves etc. They show mostly the longwave patterns.
They showed those in the 384 hr to everyone.
_________________
"Weather is like a cookbook and you need all the ingredients to make the perfect meal".
-Kevin Martin |
| |
|
|
weatherman714
tagged & banned
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 953
Location: Maryland |
| hahaha
Mon May 28, 2007 10:43 pm
|
|
|
Mark>>
 Told ya so... 
And where's that transformation Mr. Math? |
| |
|
|
Fibers_Make_You_Regular
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 10
|
|
Mon May 28, 2007 10:52 pm
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KevinMartin
You are def not as smart as me to do so, and were not struck by lightning in term for your brain to work 3X faster than normal to produce mass math calculations in that pity head of yours.
Such comments are uncalled for here. This is a discussion about chemtrails not the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the people who post.
quote:
Originally posted by KevinMartin
I decided not to respond in here because no one has given proof of the existance of these trails. I've seen them before 1990's. Settled and that is that.
Settled? You have offered no proof that chemtrails DO NOT exist! In fact, if anything, you've done nothing but avoid addressing the points and questions we ask. You come here, to a CHEMTRAIL forum, expecting us to simply believe you when you say "They're just contrails."
Slinging insults certainly won't win you any friends on here. Maybe you are a weather savant, and maybe your brain does work 3x faster than normal. But that doesn't mean the rest of us are stupid, nor does it make all of our observations and research worthless. Someone with your alleged intelligence should realize that point, and you should also understand that many of us do have brains that function properly. We're not crazy people, or lunatics. We're fully capable of observing the evidence, seeing the differences between the various trails, and coming to conclusions based on that evidence. You may not agree with those conclusions, but that doesn't mean you should assume that we're automatically wrong.
By the way, I was riding home from a day with the in laws today and spotted 3 jets creating contrails. You know, the trails that disappear after a couple minutes? And not far away in the same sky, at the same time, was a nice long trail that was visible for most of the ride home. Tell me, how does one contrail stay in place for so long while the others vanish in a short time? Oh wait, you're not here to answer questions, so never mind. |
| |
|
|
mmmmbarium
tagged & banned
Joined: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 385
Location: Hell on Earth |
|
Mon May 28, 2007 11:07 pm
|
|
|
LOOKS YOU ARE GETTING OWNED KEVIN MARTIN |
| |
|
|
KevinMartin
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 159
|
|
Mon May 28, 2007 11:36 pm
|
|
|
I already said this before. The human eye cannot determine distance such as 40,000 Feet to 20,000 Feet. The trails you most likely saw were lower than the long contrail observed. Even the 10,000 Feet difference is all you need.
mmmbarium, I basically own the weather k thanks.
714 already is being owned to hell by me.
_________________
"Weather is like a cookbook and you need all the ingredients to make the perfect meal".
-Kevin Martin |
| |
|
|
weatherman714
tagged & banned
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 953
Location: Maryland |
| lmao rotf
Tue May 29, 2007 12:48 am
|
|
|
quote:
714 already is being owned to hell by me.
lmao rotf...  still lmao rotf... lmao... lmao.... oh man I can't wait to tell my friends this one. My friend Jessica teaches autistic kids in middle school. Oh man no wonder she's so stressed out at the end of the day. |
| |
|
|
KevinMartin
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 159
|
|
Tue May 29, 2007 1:05 am
|
|
|
Yes tell them, and shove www.ontarioweatherservice.com in their face as well.
I nailed the CONN Tornado today, the MN Tornado Today, AND the Canada Tornado today. What a day for nailing tornadoes....
What have you done? Oh yeha, nothing.
Keep dreamin kid. You are owned
_________________
"Weather is like a cookbook and you need all the ingredients to make the perfect meal".
-Kevin Martin |
| |
|
|
starman1
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 1498
Location: Earth |
|
Tue May 29, 2007 1:26 am
|
|
|
This thread has degraded beyond it's worth, and for all it's worth I think it's time to shut it down. I and other's here on site do not want to see this endless muddslinging continue, so until further notice... |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri May 25, 2012 12:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
