Why isn't the climate fixed?

The constant claim is that HAARP is used to control the weather. It can do anything from move hurricanes, to make volcanoes explode. If it was anything like that, then Climate Change should be a thing of the past.

Volcanic eruptions over the past decade or so have cooled global lower-atmosphere temperatures to a statistically significant degree, concludes an article published online in Nature Geoscience. Incorporating these volcanic influences into climate models reduces the difference between observed and computer-simulated surface temperature trends between 1998 and 2012 by up to 15 per cent.

link

Spending billions to release particulates into the upper atmosphere would not be needed. Just blow a few more volcanoes.

But since the climate issue still exists, is it not reasonable to assume that perhaps we don't have control over things like steering hurricanes and when volcanoes blow?

reply to post by network dude


That is one possibility.

The other is what I find more likely and more often accurate when we're dealing with Government and science Government is either directing or funding.

We are perfectly capable and actually quite good at breaking thinks. Where we fall short and never quite seem to get the trick right is in fixing things to work properly. Even when the tools are handy and easily used....it seems breaking things is what we excel at.

OMG! Being reasonable and approaching a topic from a position of logic rather than rampant belief without proof is not very typical of ATS as of late.

You shill you! You must work for Harp.

I'm with Wrabbit: Incompetence is a possibility. Heck, even a probability maybe. It could also be like the little Dutch boy and the dike, but with too many holes for one kid.

Then again we could be looking at some variety of programs/objectives including the possibility it's about weaponization. Our system of gubmint seems pretty excited about weaponization of any sort.

Btw, does anyone remember the name of that program to start Tsunamis by underwater nuclear blast?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I am with you as well. And I think people should be watching any and all groups with regards to geo-engineering, I am not saying it could never happen. But if the government had this type of control, exactly how long would it be before it got out of hand? With the openness of the HAARP facility, the open tours they used to have, and the fact that it's currently shut down, all seem to reinforce the belief that it is exactly what it claims to be.

Besides, we can be absolutely sure it's not happening since Al Gore has not taken credit for fixing GW.

network dude
Climate Change should be a thing of the past.

The Climate Change agenda isnt going anywhere IMO. Its big business.

reply to post by The GUT

Btw, does anyone remember the name of that program to start Tsunamis by underwater nuclear blast?

Don't know if this is one but...

The GUT
I'm with Wrabbit: Incompetence is a possibility. Heck, even a probability maybe.

so they are competent enough to keep "it" a complete and utter secret in the sense that there has never been a single leak of any actual verifiable information available that "it" is actually happening, not ever, not one.......

but not competent enough to do "it" properly.

Hoookaayy.......

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


There was a "tsunami bomb" tested off New Zealand in WW2......it failed.

The bikini test showed that the wave from nuclear bomb is quite limited - test shot baker created a 94 foot high tsunami at 1000 feet from the center after 11 seconds....but 3.5 miles away it was only 9 feet high.

there was so much contamination from Baker that it could not be cleaned up, and a 3rd shot, Charlie, was abandoned.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


The only plan I've heard of for a weapons induced tsunami was never tested in a functional way and all grease board theory. It involved coordinated and carefully placed charges on one of Antarctica's larger ice shelves to drop the entire thing as a mass into the water and off the land mass as one piece. Something about the displacement on that, according to theory, would cause a Super-Tsunami, actually. A self-feeding wave..and don't even ask..I don't know the physics...it's years beyond me.

Anyway, as I'd read that one a long time ago, it was a Russian idea that we'd have gotten to see tested if global war ever had broken out for real. Imagine the loss between Antarctica and the American coastline..just to hit the U.S.. Craaazy stuff.

Then again, one of the devices theorized in Los Alamos for the Manhattan Project simply had "backyard" as a delivery method, because the sheer size on the board was so large for yield, they figured detonation point wouldn't matter, no matter what the target was. Nice folks we pay to thnik this stuff up, eh?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Was the 22,000lb Grand Slam ever considered for that? It was nicknamed the earthquake bomb when dropped on land targets due to it's devastating effects.


en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by waynos


I doubt it - although it was 10 tons the actual explosive content was only about 4 tons (4144kg), which would only make a few ripples!

the conclusion from het previous tests was:

Experts concluded that single explosions were not powerful enough and a successful tsunami bomb would require about 2 million kilograms of explosive arrayed in a line about five miles from shore.

- so 4000 kg isn't going to achieve much! lol

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I was thinking of it exploding beneath the sea bed, near the coast, rather than in the water, in similar manner to how it was used in the war.

BTW, I like this passage from that article ;

A live Grand Slam bomb was mistakenly displayed as a gate guardian at RAF Scampton for nearly fifteen years before the mistake was realised. It was gingerly removed (by crane and low-loader) to the test range at Shoeburyness, where it was detonated.

Maybe not actually true, but worth a chuckle

reply to post by waynos


That's still overthinking it a bit IMO - the "earthquake" ability of the bombs was limited and they had to hit or land very close to the target to have effect.

Here you go an interesting little tsunami...



So I guess on a bigger scale it could be possible.

reply to post by network dude


This is ludicrous. If you believe the climate changes are a result of Chemtrails or anything as stupid, and that the earths patterns should be fixed... then you fall in your own hole with the ice ages of the past.

I am still flabbergasted at the stupidity of people in this modern age.

I'm glad I live in the US where we don't have climate change only weather. People try all kinds of angles but what was old is new again and the weather just goes round and round. Cold weather or droughts round and round we go.

reply to post by network dude


This same story about aerosols from tiny volcanoes performing acrobatic leaps into the stratosphere gets regurgitated and recirculated every two years or so.

Because every two years or so studies based on computer modeling don't agree with real life.

And we have to start looking for where all the extra junk came from.

Because observational evidence of all the daily spewing from jets is just too obvious.

MadMax9
reply to post by network dude

 

This is ludicrous. If you believe the climate changes are a result of Chemtrails or anything as stupid, and that the earths patterns should be fixed... then you fall in your own hole with the ice ages of the past.

I am still flabbergasted at the stupidity of people in this modern age.

Dude doesn't think that, a look through his other posts will help you see the point that was being made

reply to post by MadMax9


The post is about why HAARP is NOT being used to modify weather. Some poster here cling to every conspiracy out there and try to tie it into chemtrails and GW. I was trying to use logic to explain why HAARP is just as it's advertised. Sorry if it wasn't clear.