Originally posted by iamahumandoing
It appears that it IS being used for weather modification, this paper relates to 'macroscopic time and altitude distribution of plasma turbulence
induced in ionospheric modification experiments'.
I don't see that it does. I just finished reading the paper by Rose, Dubois, et al,
I hate to be the perpetual nay-sayer of ATS and, God knows, I have my own ideas that most would consider crazy or half-baked. However, a lifetime of
training in physics and mathematics has instilled in me the recognition of the importance of delineating observation from speculation. Not that there
is anything wrong with speculation. Humans are, in general, very adept at detecting subtle patterns. Unfortunately, humans are at least equally good
at imagining patterns that are not present.
One must be careful when reading technical literature of this sort. For example, a researcher may use, without explanation, terminology that has a
very specific and narrow meaning, one that would be immediately assumed and understood by other researchers for whom the article was intended.
However, the nonspecialist might recognize the terminology and attach to it connotations that were not intended by the author(s). As an example, when
the physicist refers to energy, he/she is referring to something quite specific, whereas, in general usage, the term has become a catch-all to express
a wide variety of ideas and connotations. Another example, mentioned above, is the term "aerosol". For most people, the term implies something
being sprayed, as from a can. However, as stars15k rightly pointed out above, when the atmospheric scientist uses the term, it carries no such
On to the article at issue. Now, I grant that I am not an expert in this particular field of specialization. My own area of relative expertise is in
foundational issues in mathematical physics, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory in particular. However, I know enough about physics to get
the gist of the article.
This appears to be a report published by OSTI, based upon research done by LANL. It is stamped "distribution of this document is unlimited." I
take this to mean that OSTI is unconcerned with copyright issues, unlike most scientific journal publishers. Here is how it works: the authors are
getting grant money from DOE and LANL to do this research, which they had presumably carefully outlined in a grant proposal at some prior point. Now,
in order to keep that grant money flowing, they need to produce results. So they write up this summary of what they have been up to for the last
three years and send it to DOE. And DOE, in order to demonstrate that whole thing is not a great big waste of money, publishes the summary for the
world to see. To my mind, there is nothing mysterious here.
But what of the content? As far as I can tell, they say that they fired a beam of radio waves, in the HF portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, at
the ionoshpere. They used the Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico for this, since in 1996, HAARP was still under construction. Then they noticed
some turbulence in the ionoshpere, which is basically a plasma of charged particles, electrons and ions. The timing of it seemed to confirm that the
turbulence was caused by the localized heating of the plasma due to the incident radio waves, rather than some random occurrence. Then there is a
description of some of the technical features of the turbulence.
Well, pardon me, but this does not seem like an earth-shattering result. Hm, charged particles are affected by electromagnetic radiation, you say?
The only thing that I might have found surprising here would have been if they had *not* seen any effect. In other words, this is what charged
particles do, respond to electromagnetic fields. To be fair to the authors, they know all this, and are apparently merely trying to point out that
the observed effects were *caused* by Arecibo, as well as quantify certain features of the effects.
But what I am not seeing in this article is any reference to weather control or modification. Furthermore, weather is a tropospheric, and possibly
stratospheric, phenomenon. This paper deals with ionospheric phenomena. One may argue that ionospheric disturbances translate into weather features,
but this would be speculation. If anyone knows of any studies that have been done on this, feel free to enlighten me.
In closing, I am not saying that HAARP has no capability for weather modification. I am saying that the present paper is not the smoking gun, as is
being claimed here.