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.

 

The Austrailian Floods... MAN-MADE!!?!?!

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious7
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Someone I consider as a very close friend lives in Brisbane, I've been worried as hell but I do believe the OP. No I'm not blaming the citizens of Queensland and I'm sure others aren't either, it just seems an awful coincidence that the news was posted in the SMH last august and now this.

If it is true then I think you people in QLD should be given extra compensation and help with an apology attached because if anyone did use a man-made weather machine of some kind to cause this then they are extremely heartless and to do this to other people is despicable.

What I also find weird is that although the floods in QLD and Brazil are the main news as well as Haiti: One Year Later over here in the UK, why haven't we been asked to donate to our Australian brethren like we were encouraged to do so for Pakistan and other countries devastated by disaster? Especially since you guys are in the Commonwealth with us.


I find it very possible that the government MEANT WELL by this. But the man-made clouds could have come together with la nina at the perfect time for a catastrophic, yet unwanted, event that has led to these floods.

The drought definitely made things worse since this all just came at once.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Above_Beyond
 


That could be true, human micalculations and all that.

Two words stuck out when I read the OP though......"Inland tsunami"

That's what helped make more sense in my view



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
This can be true floods are a appearing on other dry places aswell and rain making been proven. What if it turns out to be true? This can be used as weapon.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Above_Beyond

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
You people are disgusting. An area larger than Germany and France combined has been completely submerged in water- over a dozen dead and many more missing- and you somehow think it is appropriate to post something like this? Even blaming us (yes, I live in QLD) for causing it ourselves?! Have some compassion for goodness sake. We here have enough to deal with without people like you coming up with ridiculous stories like this. Absolute poor form!

Who do you work for, sir?

I've supported with cash donations while looking into the possibility of the Australian government having something to do with it. Since you live there, why don't YOU get off the computer and go help those in need? Clearly, WE cannot do anything first hand.. but you can!
edit on 14-1-2011 by Above_Beyond because: (no reason given)


I work for a university that is currently underwater. I am a resident of Brisbane and I can promise you I am spending as much time as I physically can to help clean up this mess. Did you not read my later post?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by curious7
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


Someone I consider as a very close friend lives in Brisbane, I've been worried as hell but I do believe the OP. No I'm not blaming the citizens of Queensland and I'm sure others aren't either, it just seems an awful coincidence that the news was posted in the SMH last august and now this.

If it is true then I think you people in QLD should be given extra compensation and help with an apology attached because if anyone did use a man-made weather machine of some kind to cause this then they are extremely heartless and to do this to other people is despicable.

What I also find weird is that although the floods in QLD and Brazil are the main news as well as Haiti: One Year Later over here in the UK, why haven't we been asked to donate to our Australian brethren like we were encouraged to do so for Pakistan and other countries devastated by disaster? Especially since you guys are in the Commonwealth with us.


I apologied for my outburst in another post.

I don't honestly know why you haven't been asked to donate. Another thread raised the topic that people have barely heard about the floods at all in some parts of the world, who knows why? If you are interested in donating though, our state government set up a website that you can send money too. All the money is being given out as cash payments to those who need it to go and get things for whatever reason because of the floods.

www.qld.gov.au...



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


More or less blaming your government not you, you easily excited aussie. So as was said earlier grab a bag breath deep and repeat......once your not so damn flustered maybe you can get back to helping your own people.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
To be fair, can you blame hypervalentiodine for "being flustered" considering his/her part of the world has just had a huge flood and loss of life/damage to property?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaneThinking
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


More or less blaming your government not you, you easily excited aussie. So as was said earlier grab a bag breath deep and repeat......once your not so damn flustered maybe you can get back to helping your own people.


Again, I have apologised if I seemed a tad over excited. The brain does funny things under stress, I suppose. If it were the government's doing, and I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with that speculation, I should suspect it might be on a more federal level.

Also again, I *am* helping my people. I've just stopped back home to grab something to eat (only my room, which is the whole downstairs, was destroyed) in between hour long shifts trudging through sewerage, mud and water helping clean up and trying to put things back together.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
Yes, I read the OP. It seemed awfully like it was implying that the floods were deliberate - did I miss anything? If not, then I reserve the right as a QLD resident stuck in the middle of the worst flood in a generation to be annoyed when people think it is appropriate to post # like this. SMH or not, there is no proof of it having caused anything. Besides that, I think it's just rude to try and imply that we had something to do with this. QLD needs support right now, not finger pointing - especially if the finger you're pointing is directed at us!


I disagree, I definitely think we contributed at least something to it.

Even if it wasn't weather modification, environmental modifications like clearing land building roads etc does definitely have an impact, its complex how all man-made structures contribute but it is significant.
edit on 14-1-2011 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
We have been having fairly good size rain events here in Australia for months now, it stretches well back into last year.
I forget exactly when they all started but they began in Western Aust then spread to central Aust. (Northern Territory) and then slowly started to creep into Queensland. We had rain event, after rain event, after rain event, i could keep going and they are still happening and probably will keep happening for awhile yet.
Our cyclone season i think has been prolonged cause of them, but i speak to soon we actually have a cyclone off north QLD atm and i think one off the W.A coast.
You listen to some people and they say theres a pattern about every ten years or so it sort of cycles around between wet and dry, but every so often one of the cycles goes abit crazy and gives us what has been going on.

As apart of my job i have to know what the weather is doing especially the rain so i tend to take abit more notice than most people. We have gone from saying it never rains here to expecting rain everyday. I keep a raincoat in my car, the first time ever in my life.

My familys hearts and thoughts go out to everyone who has lost family members, loved ones or friends in this horrible disaster.
Also to all the volunteers thanks for helping clean up this big mess, my hats off to you guys.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I remember a few articles coming out about this on MSM and then all of sudden it wasnt discussed on MSM at all. Although I have a feeling it has been researched and tested in Australia over the last few years.

Call for new group to unlock the potential of clouds


reg.bom.gov.au...


The fi nal report of the Southeast Queensland Cloud Seeding Research Program was delivered to the Queensland Government which funded the research. The Bureau was one of several agencies, together with the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Monash University, and the University of Southern Queensland, contracted to work on the program, which assessed the potential for seeding convective clouds in a subtropical environment. The Bureau contributed data on cloud structures and on raindrop sizes obtained through use of new radar and other instrumentation, as well as participating in the scientifi c analysis. The results of the research program, which suggested that cloud seeding could have a net positive effect on rainfall in convective environments, are also being reported in the formal scientifi c literature, including papers submitted to international journals and conferences.

www.bom.gov.au...
cawcr.gov.au...


Water shortages occurred in the Southeast Queensland region due to several years of reduced rainfall and an increasing population. As a response, the Queensland Government invested resources into studying the feasibility of precipitation enhancement via cloud seeding

www.ral.ucar.edu...

And here we have

Final Report on Southeast Queensland Cloud Seeding Research Program


www.climatechange.qld.gov.au...

The information IS out their people, just track it down. My perception is that this "research"/experimenting in combination may have intensified the la nina.(mind you the government was not in the MSM 2-3 years ago, they predicted us too go into drought)
Just a thought it could be a huge coincendence and Anna Bligh is now kicking herself for spending money on this research.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by Above_Beyond

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine
You people are disgusting. An area larger than Germany and France combined has been completely submerged in water- over a dozen dead and many more missing- and you somehow think it is appropriate to post something like this? Even blaming us (yes, I live in QLD) for causing it ourselves?! Have some compassion for goodness sake. We here have enough to deal with without people like you coming up with ridiculous stories like this. Absolute poor form!

Who do you work for, sir?

I've supported with cash donations while looking into the possibility of the Australian government having something to do with it. Since you live there, why don't YOU get off the computer and go help those in need? Clearly, WE cannot do anything first hand.. but you can!
edit on 14-1-2011 by Above_Beyond because: (no reason given)


I work for a university that is currently underwater. I am a resident of Brisbane and I can promise you I am spending as much time as I physically can to help clean up this mess. Did you not read my later post?


Yeah that was posted in response to your early rant.. sorry for your situation, keep your head up.. this too shall pass.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
An earlier poster brought up a good point.. why hasn't there been any Rallies for Australia? I think it's because not enough people have perished yet.. which is ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by Whateva69
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


I just think people's time could be better spent helping rather than blaming - which is what this is.



NO this is speculation there is a difference.
calm down a little, we all see what's going on and can only hope
things improve.but some of us are not in your country so what can
we do to help? Remember this is only a theory.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthyaroura

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

Originally posted by Whateva69
reply to post by hypervalentiodine
 


I just think people's time could be better spent helping rather than blaming - which is what this is.



NO this is speculation there is a difference.
calm down a little, we all see what's going on and can only hope
things improve.but some of us are not in your country so what can
we do to help? Remember this is only a theory.


I really wish you people would actually read further than that post before you quote it...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Please visit the following link to a thread in the weatherzone forum

forum.weatherzone.com.au...

here it is pointed out that cloud seeding is *not* the root cause of this flood event. It is also suggested that it played no part at all in increasing the rate of precipitation for this event or the coverage.

Conspiracies aside, the science behind this event is the most important aspect to uncovering the root cause. I will even go further and state that the proposition that cloud seeding was the key factor can be systematically debunked by applying scientific methodology to analyse the event. In addition, I will brush over the notion that it was a partial contributer and to what extent. So I will go on and make a few points relating to this

*First of all, it is unlikely that any one physical characteristic of this event is the sole reason for the event. In fact, there is a number of things, I believe these fall into the following categories

1) things governing the movement of water vapour in question.
2) aspects of the land which govern the movement of mass on the ground, and pattern of urban development.
3) things relating to phase change (vapour to liquid)
4) others (combined effect not totaling more than any of the above)

In my opinion (1) is the most important aspect of the size and scale of the event. For example, can you have a massive flood with just (1) on its own? ans: yes.

Can you have a massive flood with just (2) on its own? Answer yes, just locate civilisation on land below the sea level.

Can you have a massive flood with just 3 on its own? Probably not (NO! to be blunt). So the process of phase change is just a catalyst for the event. Making it easier for the event to occur.

So at the core of this thread is the proposition that "thai cloud seeding" partially contributed or significantly contributed to the scale of the event, the implication being the liability of the QLD govt to all this. Lets look at the possibility of a significant contribution from seeding and perhaps a conceptual model to describe it. First ask the following questions relating to (1);

a) does cloud seeding affect the volume of water in the atmosphere over a large area. Probably not. Whilst it does move some of the vapour from cloud to ground reduce the volume, it is air characteristics that influence this most.
b) does it affect the rate of evaporation, No, sea temperature, pressure, etc that affect this
c) does cloud seeding influence the movement of water vapour over large distances e.g. moving that vapour from the ocean to land? I will say no.
d) does seeding affect barometric pressure such that there is atmospheric instability. Probably not.

So on the above points, I would say there is little if any direct effect on the amount of cloud over land, particularly the massive quantities of vapour dumped on QLD. Regarding (2), does seeding affect where people settle, or affect the land topography that could enhance flooding? No.

So it is highly likely that if any seeding had occurred that its role would only be to increase the rate of drop formation in the atmosphere (3) . A reasonable question to ask is by how much did it contribute to the rate of precipitation and hence total volume? 10% 50%, 2x, 10x 100x? If there was no seeding what would have the flood level been?

Some figures from BOM suggest 30% increased snow in the snowy mountains over a winter period. Other resources suggest of the order of 10's of percent. This link (www.warwickhughes.com...) suggests up to 20% over a period. Based on this information and reading several weather forum threads (focused in on seeding effects over a short duration) that in the absence of any possible cloud seeding the magnitude of the event would have still been significant. The atmospheric conditions, volume of vapour and movement of upper level troughs is consistent with an event of this magnitude. On this basis I dont think there is any conspiracy relating to an event entirely caused by deliberate intention to cause distruction. Please note, the OP does not make this assertion but I would to discourage those tempted to come to the conclusion that there was malicious intent (much like how some suggest HAARP caused earthquake XY or Z). Coming back to the OPs suggestion the event was partially enhanced by Govt incompetence, i think you will find no record of widespread seeding over that period and an FOI would quickly pull this up. Furthermore, this idea has not really been considered in various weather forums, not due to ignorance but the fundamental understanding that seeding could cause such an event falls over at the first and second hurdles.

So to finish up, for this thread to have credibility and warrant flagging there should be a scientifically structured argument precisely detailing a model by which this event was partially or significantly influenced by man made actions. IMHO, only when you have this sort of ammo behind you can explicitly ask for flags to promote the cause particularly if one is inferring incompetence in another person or organsiation. To some it may come across as being politically motivated. A blatant example was when a Sydney talkback caller rang in and announced that there was benzene in the desal water supply to Sydney. He came to this conclusion based on the fact that the Caltex Refinery outfall is right next to where the desal plant gets its sea water. It was a tenuous link at best and what he should have done was get the drinking water tested. But instead the call was politically motivated disinformation and he was rightly cut off.


Perhaps best to let this thread progress on its own merits for now and focus on the science if you genuinely want to make an impact on this issue.



edit on 15-1-2011 by pezza because: correct spelling



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pezza
Please visit the following link to a thread in the weatherzone forum

forum.weatherzone.com.au...

here it is pointed out that cloud seeding is *not* the root cause of this flood event. It is also suggested that it played no part at all in increasing the rate of precipitation for this event or the coverage.

Conspiracies aside, the science behind this event is the most important aspect to uncovering the root cause. I will even go further and state that the proposition that cloud seeding was the key factor can be systematically debunked by applying scientific methodology to analyse the event. In addition, I will brush over the notion that it was a partial contributer and to what extent. So I will go on and make a few points relating to this

*First of all, it is unlikely that any one physical characteristic of this event is the sole reason for the event. In fact, there is a number of things, I believe these fall into the following categories

1) things governing the movement of water vapour in question.
2) aspects of the land which govern the movement of mass on the ground, and pattern of urban development.
3) things relating to phase change (vapour to liquid)
4) others (combined effect not totaling more than any of the above)

In my opinion (1) is the most important aspect of the size and scale of the event. For example, can you have a massive flood with just (1) on its own? ans: yes.

Can you have a massive flood with just (2) on its own? Answer yes, just locate civilisation on land below the sea level.

Can you have a massive flood with just 3 on its own? Probably not (NO! to be blunt). So the process of phase change is just a catalyst for the event. Making it easier for the event to occur.

So at the core of this thread is the proposition that "thai cloud seeding" partially contributed or significantly contributed to the scale of the event, the implication being the liability of the QLD govt to all this. Lets look at the possibility of a significant contribution from seeding and perhaps a conceptual model to describe it. First ask the following questions relating to (1);

a) does cloud seeding affect the volume of water in the atmosphere over a large area. Probably not. Whilst it does move some of the vapour from cloud to ground reduce the volume, it is air characteristics that influence this most.
b) does it affect the rate of evaporation, No, sea temperature, pressure, etc that affect this
c) does cloud seeding influence the movement of water vapour over large distances e.g. moving that vapour from the ocean to land? I will say no.
d) does seeding affect barometric pressure such that there is atmospheric instability. Probably not.

So on the above points, I would say there is little if any direct effect on the amount of cloud over land, particularly the massive quantities of vapour dumped on QLD. Regarding (2), does seeding affect where people settle, or affect the land topography that could enhance flooding? No.

So it is highly likely that if any seeding had occurred that its role would only be to increase the rate of drop formation in the atmosphere (3) . A reasonable question to ask is by how much did it contribute to the rate of precipitation and hence total volume? 10% 50%, 2x, 10x 100x? If there was no seeding what would have the flood level been?

Some figures from BOM suggest 30% increased snow in the snowy mountains over a winter period. Other resources suggest of the order of 10's of percent. This link (www.warwickhughes.com...) suggests up to 20% over a period. Based on this information and reading several weather forum threads (focused in on seeding effects over a short duration) that in the absence of any possible cloud seeding the magnitude of the event would have still been significant. The atmospheric conditions, volume of vapour and movement of upper level troughs is consistent with an event of this magnitude. On this basis I dont think there is any conspiracy relating to an event entirely caused by deliberate intention to cause distruction. Please note, the OP does not make this assertion but I would to discourage those tempted to come to the conclusion that there was malicious intent (much like how some suggest HAARP caused earthquake XY or Z). Coming back to the OPs suggestion the event was partially enhanced by Govt incompetence, i think you will find no record of widespread seeding over that period and an FOI would quickly pull this up. Furthermore, this idea has not really been considered in various weather forums, not due to ignorance but the fundamental understanding that seeding could cause such an event falls over at the first and second hurdles.

So to finish up, for this thread to have credibility and warrant flagging there should be a scientifically structured argument precisely detailing a model by which this event was partially or significantly influenced by man made actions. IMHO, only when you have this sort of ammo behind you can explicitly ask for flags to promote the cause particularly if one is inferring incompetence in another person or organsiation. To some it may come across as being politically motivated. A blatant example was when a Sydney talkback caller rang in and announced that there was benzene in the desal water supply to Sydney. He came to this conclusion based on the fact that the Caltex Refinery outfall is right next to where the desal plant gets its sea water. It was a tenuous link at best and what he should have done was get the drinking water tested. But instead the call was politically motivated disinformation and he was rightly cut off.


Perhaps best to let this thread progress on its own merits for now and focus on the science if you genuinely want to make an impact on this issue.



edit on 15-1-2011 by pezza because: correct spelling


The Science (links) you have backed up your argunment is very hard to understand, seeing as it looks like the authors of the argument you copy/pasted here do not actually fully understand the whole concept.
If you want to get all scientific please stop useing words like this


Probably



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 





Perhaps best to let this thread progress on its own merits for now and focus on the science if you genuinely want to make an impact on this issue.


You my friend are a breath of fresh air, quality post thank you so much, chucked a star your way, wish i could chuck 10


Wal



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
All destruction of this planet is manmade.

Welcome to all the people who have wrecked this planet - you are dead too! How much fun is that?

Plus, you have to go through some deeply bad scenarios - good luck with your money then!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
I strongly doubt if these horrible events where man made.

This is purely an act of nature, nothing more, nothing less.

Nature is powerful, and we as humans sometimes pay the price.

VVv



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join