It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Glimpse of the NOAA's Weather Modification Activities Records, and AWG

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




it gets added to the data that goes global .


You can add me to the one of the 9/11 bombing plots...doesn't mean it is true.

They look at the whole country when making those reports they don't add local effects of cloudseeding to it because it is just that local.




posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Well seeing CO2 is the main driver of climate for the AGW crowd and climate produces weather and seeing more extreme weather is always because of climate change these man made weather exeriments that may be able to get out of hand and produce severe weather could be mistaken for CO2 climate change weather .....I wonder how the climate scientist determine which are CO2 man made and just man made ????



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

All of the weather stations are just local too and they take that data and add it to the whole . If they can make it rain ,maybe they can make it not . In which case you wouldn't be getting a true record of weather and temps but ones that are cause by weather modification ....How do climate scientist factor those equations into the data and do they make adjustments ?



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

That is hyperbole on your part.

Your confirmation bias is clouding your reason.

It is understood by science that CO2 is a big factor in AGW.



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Local weather is part of climate. Every parts of a system influences the whole. Here, let me explain.

There are currents of air, just like there are currents of water. Both are fluids. In fact we have, over north america, two jet streams - one polar and one subtropical. Now, if you influence cloud formation in a region crossed by such a strong current, this can cause local humidity to rise or lower, and local temperature to rise or lower (through shadowing of the surface and/or dissipation of heat through evaporation) - all properties which can be transmitted to the next area which the current of air crosses. For instance, it is not rare for us in Quebec to receive the tail of your weather patterns which can often start as far south as Texas. Last month we even rerceived the remants of Patricia - a local system which had started in mexico.

Mistake not, local weather does generate ramifications which can easily extend to an entire continent.


edit on 26-11-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Do we know the extent of this weather modification ? Not so much how much it can produce the change ,but that would be a plus to factor in but to what level of time operations have been dedicated to doing it . You have only produced one report so far but can other years be documented ? I am thinking this is probably bigger the the heat island effect of cities .



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

Do we know the extent of this weather modification ? Not so much how much it can produce the change ,but that would be a plus to factor in but to what level of time operations have been dedicated to doing it .

According to the 2011 report, weather modification activities have been carried out by various agencies for the entire year. Each event lasted months, sometimes up to six month of constant activity. Whoever the investors are, the agencies were very determined to change the natural weather trend and make it snow over nearly half of the country. And it worked - 2011 received an unsual amount of snow. Wich was then blamed on Global Warming.

And remember, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The reports we're seeing are only showing non-federal weather mod activities. Which means federal agencies can (and probably are) engage in heavy weather modification activities without having to tell the public about it, keeping not only the people unaware of such activities, but also the majority of scientists - including climatologists who would then unknowingly build models on artificial or tampred-with weather evidences.

This also opens wide the door for the manufacturing of artificial evidences so to push a particular political stance on climate change.


You have only produced one report so far but can other years be documented ?

They are documented, yes, but to obtain the report one must contact the NOAA and provide name, address, etc. and promise to comply with a law called Pub. L. 92–205. So this is why the reports are scarce on Internet, and why I could only find 1972, 1973 and 2011 there.



edit on 28-11-2015 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Ok , very interesting . Have you or anyone else brought the issue to the attention of the guy asking NOAH or what ever the agency is for the documents surrounding the RICO scandal . Last I read he was asking and they were refusing so he was going to use the law to compel them . Not sure if I read a thread here or if it might have been over at WUWT ...I guess I will have a look for the piece . thanks for the reply ..



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I have the NOAA reported weather modification activities for 2004-2012 in a Google Fusion Table and mapped out:
climateviewer.com...

And a full history of weather control:
theweathereffect.com...



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Have you or anyone else brought the issue to the attention of the guy asking NOAH or what ever the agency is for the documents surrounding the RICO scandal .

No. It's just a conspiracy theory. This is why ATS is a better place.



posted on May, 27 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: R3zn8D
I have the NOAA reported weather modification activities for 2004-2012 in a Google Fusion Table and mapped out:
climateviewer.com...

And a full history of weather control:
theweathereffect.com...


Thanks, might give us a better view of the extent climate change claims are force-correlated to weather mod by the media.




posted on May, 27 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I don't recall ever running across thus thread when it was posted

Either way, great connection OP and thanks for taking the time to dig so that the rest of us are made aware.


Also thanks to R3zn8D for compiling that data.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
Thanks, might give us a better view of the extent climate change claims are force-correlated to weather mod by the media.


Since you saw fit half a year later to bump your own thread, maybe you'll respond to my post now?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: swanne

Do you not recall Sen. Inhofe or many members who claim on this very board that snow is evidence of no warming?

Further, your article talking about global warming-linked snowstorms is discussing storms in the Northeast.
Your weather modification record is talking about California, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Texas, and North Dakota.

I haven't looked at in awhile, but saying weather modification is causing snow when the weather modification is in an entirely different area is kinda dumb.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

You do know that there's a little something called the Jet Stream, which happens to carry weather from the south up to northeast states?




posted on May, 28 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne
While it is true that the jet stream can entrian high altitude clouds, it doesn't actually carry weather anywhere. It's a common misconception that the jet stream influences weather (thanks to TV meteorologists). Actually, it's the reverse.

Contrary to popular belief, the jet stream does not "cause" weather conditions of a certain type to occur. Its existence is instead the result of certain weather conditions (a large temperature contrast between two air masses).
www.weatherquestions.com...



Weather modification can cause a particular cloud to precipitate. That's about it. The jet stream does not cause that cloud to move (that would be more due to lower level winds).



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

In your opinion, are rain cloud static? I think we can all agree that clouds (may it be artificially seeded or naturally rainy) do move across states, unlike what Greven seems to believe.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 06:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne
I said that clouds move.
Once a cloud has been seeded, and if it precipitates, that's it. The effects of the seeding are done when the cloud precipitates.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

And that precipitation can have it's own effect on weather as well.

Just like a drought can cause different weather for non-local regions.

That's kind of the crux of this thread here; how much of an affect does weather mod have on GW simulations and calculations, and do they even take weather mod into account when running those numbers...



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: essentialtremors

Precisely.

I like to keep an eye on raw satellite weather imageries. Weather over Texas is often felt all the way up here in Quebec. I witness this on a daily basis. Weather conditions over a particular area has repercussions over the surrounding areas.




edit on 1-7-2016 by swanne because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join