Don't like the weather? Change it The weird science of weather modification makes a comeback Strange weather Pop-up Strange weather
GLOBAL COOLING: To counteract global warming, John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research has proposed a system of enormous eggbeater-like turbines that would stir up seawater, thickening the cloud cover to reflect more of the sun's energy back into space. (Photo / Stephen Salter)
By Drake Bennett | July 3, 2005
In the summer of 1930, George Ambrosius Immanuel Morrison Sykes, a self-professed ''minister of Zoroastrianism" and flat-earther (his calculations put the sun's distance from Earth at 3,300 miles), was hired by the Westchester Racing Association to ensure good weather for the horse races at Belmont Park. As described by historian Clark C. Spence in ''The Rainmakers" (1980), the contract promised Sykes $1,000 for every dry day during a week in early September, but required him to pay back twice that for every wet one.
For seven days Sykes's device--a jalopic pile of wire, antennae, jars of colored water, old radio sets, a vase, an electric heater and a toy propeller--was blessed by sun. But the following Saturday, after his contract was extended, the rains came. And when Sykes, looking to outwit fate, promised more rain two days later, the appointed day instead passed dry.
At press time, the National Weather Service was predicting a sunny July 4th in Boston, with temperatures in the low 80s. Still, it would be nice to be sure, wouldn't it? Seventy-five years after Doc Sykes's Belmost lucky streak ended in disgrace, the weather still resists our best efforts at prediction, much less control.
Not that this has stopped us from trying. Recent years have seen a growing interest not merely in forecasting, but in the seemingly fanciful prospect of customizing the weather. In 2003 the National Academy of Sciences recommended ''a coordinated national program" to ''conduct a sustained research effort" into weather modification. Politicians in Western and Southwestern states are funding attempts to tickle more moisture out of the clouds, and this March, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas introduced a bill to create a national Weather Modification Operations and Research Board.
Last fall, a meteorologist named Ross Hoffman suggested in Scientific American that a network of microwave-beaming satellites could literally take the wind out of hurricanes. In some of the driest parts of Mexico, a Bedford-based company called Ionogenics is testing a rainmaking apparatus that uses an array of steel poles to ionize the air. China, a country with widespread cloud seeding, has announced plans to engineer clear weather in Beijing for the 2008 Olympics.
Meanwhile, deepening concern over the possibly cataclysmic effects of climate change has spurred a number of recent proposals, some sketched out in considerable detail, to engineer a measure of counteractive cooling. John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., has proposed increasing the reflectivity of the cloud cover by stirring up water vapor from the ocean with a fleet of giant egg-beater-like turbines. A few years ago, a team led by the late Edward Teller suggested creating a similar effect by launching a million tons of tiny aluminum balloons into the atmosphere. The Teller team also revived a proposal, last explored in the early 1990s, to build an adjustable 2,000-kilometer-wide mirror in space to deflect some of the sun's energy before it reaches us.Continued...
July 3, 2005
In the summer of 1930, George Ambrosius Immanuel Morrison Sykes, a self-professed ''minister of Zoroastrianism" and flat-earther (his calculations put the sun's distance from Earth at 3,300 miles), was hired by the Westchester Racing Association to ensure good weather for the horse races at Belmont Park. As described by historian Clark C. Spence in ''The Rainmakers" (1980), the contract promised Sykes $1,000 for every dry day during a week in early September, but required him to pay back twice that for every wet one.
For seven days Sykes's device--a jalopic pile of wire, antennae, jars of colored water, old radio sets, a vase, an electric heater and a toy propeller--was blessed by sun. But the following Saturday, after his contract was extended, the rains came. And when Sykes, looking to outwit fate, promised more rain two days later, the appointed day instead passed dry.
At press time, the National Weather Service was predicting a sunny July 4th in Boston, with temperatures in the low 80s. Still, it would be nice to be sure, wouldn't it? Seventy-five years after Doc Sykes's Belmost lucky streak ended in disgrace, the weather still resists our best efforts at prediction, much less control.
Not that this has stopped us from trying. Recent years have seen a growing interest not merely in forecasting, but in the seemingly fanciful prospect of customizing the weather. In 2003 the National Academy of Sciences recommended ''a coordinated national program" to ''conduct a sustained research effort" into weather modification. Politicians in Western and Southwestern states are funding attempts to tickle more moisture out of the clouds, and this March, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas introduced a bill to create a national Weather Modification Operations and Research Board.
Last fall, a meteorologist named Ross Hoffman suggested in Scientific American that a network of microwave-beaming satellites could literally take the wind out of hurricanes. In some of the driest parts of Mexico, a Bedford-based company called Ionogenics is testing a rainmaking apparatus that uses an array of steel poles to ionize the air. China, a country with widespread cloud seeding, has announced plans to engineer clear weather in Beijing for the 2008 Olympics.
Meanwhile, deepening concern over the possibly cataclysmic effects of climate change has spurred a number of recent proposals, some sketched out in considerable detail, to engineer a measure of counteractive cooling. John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., has proposed increasing the reflectivity of the cloud cover by stirring up water vapor from the ocean with a fleet of giant egg-beater-like turbines. A few years ago, a team led by the late Edward Teller suggested creating a similar effect by launching a million tons of tiny aluminum balloons into the atmosphere. The Teller team also revived a proposal, last explored in the early 1990s, to build an adjustable 2,000-kilometer-wide mirror in space to deflect some of the sun's energy before it reaches us. Page 2 of 4 --
To be sure, within the meteorological establishment the enthusiasm for weather modification is far from universal. And climate engineering-- the alteration of global, rather than local, weather systems--remains purely theoretical. Still, after decades of disfavor, such ideas are getting a second look. As our ability to comprehend the weather improves and as the threat of climate change looms larger, some scientists are ready to brave the uncertainty and tangled ethics of tinkering with the skies.
In 1946, over Mount Greylock in western Massachusetts, a General Electric research chemist named Vincent Schaefer scattered three pounds of crushed dry ice out of an airplane into a cloud and set off a snow flurry. It was the world's first successful cloud seeding-- later that year, the meteorologist Bernard Vonnegut (brother to the novelist) discovered that silver iodide smoke had a similar effect-- and weather modification emerged from the realm of con men and eccentrics. Most meteorologists remained skeptical, but by 1951, 10 percent of the United States was under commercial cloud seeding. ''Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters on any desired scale" was only decades away, predicted John von Neumann, the mathematician who helped invent and began programming the first electronic computers to model the weather.
Over the next 30 years, the federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on projects all over the country to increase precipitation, to mitigate hailstorms (an age-old enemy of farmers), and, most successfully, to clear the fog from around airports. Perhaps the era's most ambitious endeavor was Project Stormfury, which sent up airplanes to seed the eye walls of hurricanes with silver iodide to weaken the winds before landfall.
The US military, unsurprisingly, was intrigued by the possibility of a godlike meteorological arsenal. According to Spencer Weart, a physicist and historian of science at the American Institute of Physics, the thinking in the Defense Department was ''maybe we'll give the Russians a real Cold War, or maybe they'll give us one, so we should be ready." Pentagon money funded much of the era's climate research, helping to create the weather models we now use in forecasting. War gamers dreamed up climatological warfare scenarios like laying down a blanket of fog over an airfield or visiting drought upon an enemy's breadbasket.
One plan even made it off the drawing board. From 1966 to 1972, under the code name Project Popeye, the US Air Force flew thousands of cloud- seeding sorties over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, hoping to muddy it into impassability. (While there's some evidence that rain did increase, it's unclear what difference this made on the ground.) When the details of the plan surfaced in the press, the public outcry led to an international treaty banning ''Military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques
July 3, 2005
In the summer of 1930, George Ambrosius Immanuel Morrison Sykes, a self-professed ''minister of Zoroastrianism" and flat-earther (his calculations put the sun's distance from Earth at 3,300 miles), was hired by the Westchester Racing Association to ensure good weather for the horse races at Belmont Park. As described by historian
...
The only seious weather mod program I saw that makes real sense is the one floated,or should I say, 'sunk', by the US navy, developed FROM a sci-fi book, that involes barge-based nuclear power plants. They sink the plant and cause it to into a semi-meltdown mode. This warms a section of the ocean, which is the only known way hurricanes pick up energy. The run-away meltdown causes a super-storm and one that is *stationary*. They actually pay people to come up with ways to do this.
Critics point to our inability to understand even local cloud systems. In 1972, a government cloud-seeding run in South Dakota was followed by a violent deluge, and more than 200 people were killed in the ensuing flood. Meteorologists disagreed over whether seeding was to blame, but the incident became an ominous symbol for those who saw weather modifiers as latter-day Pandoras.
Boyle's caution may be merited, but scientists are better equipped today to understand and manipulate the weather than they were 30 years ago. Roelof Bruintjes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a leading cloud seeding researcher, says that new radar and sensor technologies, better satellite imaging, and ever-increasing computer power have greatly aided his work. Today, he says, ''We have new tools to get the basic answers that we couldn't get in the '70s, '80s and '90s."
Some scientists and engineers, such as Daniel Schrag, director of Harvard's Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography, point out that, in light of the planet's growing thirst and rising temperature, even Soviet-scale climate modification is attracting real consideration. Boyle, who spoke at a joint MIT-Cambridge University conference on the topic last year, readily concedes, ''There are very prominent, serious scientists who are considering these things."
Such projects are inevitably presented as last-ditch protections against an existential threat, but they nevertheless raise the issue of what it would mean to take a more active role in shaping the weather--not merely in the face of catastrophe but as a means of lengthening the growing season, making rainfall more regular, or blunting heat waves.
Pop-up GLOBE GRAPHIC: Strange weather Message Board YOUR VIEW: Is it foolish and dangerous for humans to tinker with the skies?
But controlling the weather, like controlling our genes, creates a thicket of ethical thorns. For one thing, despite the international ban, reliable weather modification could end up being weaponized. A 1996 Air Force report entitled ''Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025," argued that ''the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril."
Even purely peaceful aims would lead to a cascade of seemingly zero- sum conflicts. In the US, cloud seeding has set off several lawsuits in which, for example, downwind farmers have accused a cloud-seeding neighbor of ''stealing" their rain. Such issues only grow in complexity along with the scale. Ideal weather for a farm isn't necessarily ideal for a resort. (In 1950, the owner of an upstate country club unsuccessfully sued New York City over its attempt to alleviate a drought through cloud-seeding.) What once was, in insurance parlance, an ''act of God" becomes something for which one can assign blame.
For climate modification's more eager supporters, such worries are premature. According to Joe Kaplinsky, a technology analyst in London, ''To raise these things before the technology has really gotten off the ground is to deprive us of the potential benefits of any technology, because any technology can be misused."
''Of course some people will benefit and some people will lose," Kaplinsky says, ''but there are social mechanisms for solving disagreements, either through compensation or through democratic debate." If a new technology provides a ''net gain," he says, ''the losers can be compensated. And it's very clear that there's a tremendous potential here for managing weather systems in a way that would create tremendous net gain."
Some of the calculations, though, would verge on the Solomonic. Suppose we could control hurricanes, posits Harvard's Schrag, ''but stopping one requires an incredibly hot day in Africa that would burn up all the crops. You've got one hell of a moral dilemma there."
''Let's say you have a mirror in space," he goes on. ''Think of two summers ago when we were having this awful cold summer and Europe was having this awful heat wave. Who gets to adjust the mirror?"
Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail
Who Controls the Weather? Theories about Russian agents steering Hurricane Katrina may be off base, but research into weather manipulation has been going on for decades
Pssst. Have you heard? Hurricane Katrina was intentionally steered to hit New Orleans. The Russians -- a clique of KGB secret-police hardliners who took over a secret weather-control weapon developed for the old Soviet military -- did it. In fact, according to retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Bearden, they've been dickering with U.S. weather patterns since 1976.
Or maybe it was Japan's yakuza mobsters. In 1989, they supposedly leased Russia's weather-control system. Did they make a financial killing by shorting U.S. oil stocks, then shepherding Katrina to swamp offshore oil rigs and onshore refineries?
POPEYE'S PROGRESS. To almost all scientists and weather professionals, this sort of rationalization is ludicrous. But there's no denying that technology capable of controlling the weather would be a potent military and political weapon. One of the pillars of U.S. science, mathematician and computer wizard John von Neumann, started working on weather modification right after World War II. In the late 1940s, he convinced the Defense Dept. to invest in research that he hoped could be used to vanquish Communism by causing droughts and devastating crops in the Soviet Union.
Apparent early successes with cloud-seeding tactics that induced rain spurred the Pentagon to fund modest efforts for some 20 years, and it unleashed a concerted five-year assault during the Vietnam War, starting in 1967. Dubbed Project Popeye, its goal was to prolong the monsoon season and thus impede the movement of enemy troops and supplies on muddy jungle trails.
By 1977, the military was spending $2.8 million a year on weather- modification research. That year, partly in reaction to Popeye, the United Nations passed a resolution banning the hostile use of all environmental modification techniques. This led to a treaty that the U.S. ratified in 1978. Although the treaty doesn't ban peaceful applications, or so-called benign weather modification, the Pentagon elected to eliminate all such research in 1979. The Kremlin continued its weather-modification work, however.
BOMBARDED BY SUN SPOTS. In 1996, amid signs of significant progress in Russian research, a group of seven Air Force and Army officers suggested that, in their personal opinions, the Defense Dept. should revive its efforts. In 30 years, they explained, weather-related and computer technologies might advance to the point where "weather modification can provide battle-space dominance to a degree never before imagined." The group's treatise was titled, "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025."
What alarmed the brass-hat seven were Russia's experiments at creating layers of artificial ionization in the upper atmosphere. Such natural layers act as mirrors for radio signals and enable long-range, over- the-horizon radar and radio transmissions.
But as ham radio operators know well, nature's ionospheric mirrors are fickle. They fluctuate, due mainly to solar flares and sun spots that bombard Earth's atmosphere with high-energy x-rays (photons), electrons, and other ionizing particles. Severe solar storms can disrupt all radio signals, even satellite communications. They also affect the weather.
If Russian researchers had found a way to match the power of the sun's ionizing radiation, they could knock out satellite communications at will -- blinding the spy satellites on which the U.S. military relies so heavily. With microwave-energy beams of sufficient power, it might even be possible to fry the electronic circuits in orbiting "birds" and permanently knock out the entire U.S. satellite fleet.
HAARP: WEATHER TUNING? That's not all. Theoretically, such a weapon could also create a layer in the ionosphere, which stretches upward from 50 miles (80 kilometers), that would serve as a missile shield over Russia. Ballistic missiles plunging down through this manmade layer of ionizing energy could be zapped and rendered harmless.
In fact, a decade before the "Owning the Weather" report was written, that sort of missile shield had been outlined by U.S. researcher Bernard "Ben" Eastlund, president of Eastlund Scientific Enterprises in San Diego. What spooked civilian conspiracy campers was that the Pentagon in 1995 began operating what appeared to be a prototype of Eastlund's missile-shield system.
Innocuously called the High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP, it had nowhere near the power that a missile shield would need. But the weather-conspiracy worriers fretted that HAARP was being used, or would be, to test potentially hostile weather-modification schemes.
RADICAL CONCEPT. HAARP harkens back to the early 1980s, when Eastlund was retained as a consultant by Atlantic Richfield Corp. (Arco). His task, he recalls, was "to find some way of using the huge deposit of natural gas they had discovered on the North Slope of Alaska." Arco had initially considered a pipeline, like the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, but rejected that as too costly.
What Eastlund concocted was a radical concept: An enormous field of special antennas, covering 1,600 square miles, that could beam energy produced from the natural gas into the sky. The beams would create mirrors that would then bounce microwave energy back down to receiving antennas in the lower 48 states or someplace else, where the energy would be converted into electricity.
Eastlund reckoned that the energy could also be reflected down on top of a thundercloud that was spawning a tornado. Twisters are formed by warm air rising through a layer of cool air, creating a downdraft. Computer simulations showed that injecting heat would stop the downdraft, halting the formation of a tornado -- even swatting one that was already whirling.
STAR WARS' HEYDAY. Both of those notions came to naught, however. "Everybody lost interest because the power requirements were too much," says Eastlund -- up to a million megawatts. But he continues to refine his idea. He claims to have worked out a way to drop the power required by a factor of 1,600, and still be able to untwist tornadoes. He's also doing research on new technology for manipulating winds to steer hurricanes.
Eastlund's approach is similar to the one envisioned by Ross Hoffman, vice-president for research at weather-consulting firm Atmospheric & Environmental Research in Lexington, Mass. (see BW, 10/24/05, "Herding Hurricanes"). But instead of beaming down heat from solar-power satellites, Eastlund thinks maybe an ionospheric mirror or rejiggering the jet stream could turn the trick.
While Arco was twiddling its thumbs, physicist Eastlund briefed the Pentagon on how his energy reflector could function as a missile disrupter -- just the sort of missile shield depicted in "Owning the Weather." His proposal was welcomed warmly. After all, it was the mid-1980s, the heyday of President Ronald Reagan's Star Wars initiative.
PERSISTENT ELF. In addition, Eastlund told the Defense brass that his field of antennas could solve a long-standing problem for the U.S. Navy: How to communicate with submarines while they're submerged for months on end. The antennas would bounce energy off the ionosphere as extremely low-frequency (ELF) radio waves. Unlike the radio frequencies normally used for communications, which are quickly absorbed or distorted in water, ELF signals can pierce the oceans for great distances.
Generating ELF signals is HAARP's main mission. Located about 320 miles east of Anchorage, near Gakona, Alaska, HAARP had 18 antennas and 360 kilowatts of transmitter power in 1995. Today, HAARP can strum 48 antennas and 960 kW of power -- and it may ultimately expand to 180 antennas and 3.6 megawatts of power. Even that is way short of the thousands of antennas and hundreds of megawatts of power that Eastlund figures would be needed for a missile shield or tornado buster.
But don't bother telling that to conspiracy addicts. They remain convinced that HAARP is really bent on mucking with the weather. And around 2020, maybe the Pentagon will start building a really, really big antenna field.
On May 18, 9:56 pm, nada <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reply: "'minister of Zoroastrianism"
> The only seious weather mod program I saw that makes real sense is the > one floated,or should I say, 'sunk', by the US navy, developed FROM a > sci-fi book, that involes barge-based nuclear power plants. They sink > the plant and cause it to into a semi-meltdown mode. This warms a > section of the ocean, which is the only known way hurricanes pick up > energy. The run-away meltdown causes a super-storm and one that is > *stationary*. They actually pay people to come up with ways to do > this.
> David
So Project Popeye wasn't put into operation by the Pentagon in Vietnam? 200 didn't die in a flash flood in South Dakota according to the Boston Globe There was no 1995 US air force report about weaponizing the weather? Roelof says they have new tools to get the basic answers that we couldn't get back in the 70-90's?
O assume Einde must be correct as after all weather modification programmes and the science backing it is stuck in the era of the Vietnam war?
TO date NONE of you have produced one IOTA of EVIDENCE to counterract these public statements by US government officials in the imperialist media.
Not that evidence was ever your strong point. But when you bring in sci-fi, queers, psychosis as a way to avoid the issues then its clear you have a hidden agenda, in justifying environmental intervention... ie imperialist barbarism via the back door. First they blow up your country then they want to come in to take over the spoils under guise of ...feeding the poor and the hungry, the ultimate 'guilt trip' of every globalist.
> On May 18, 9:56 pm, nada <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Reply: "'minister of Zoroastrianism"
> > The only seious weather mod program I saw that makes real sense is the > > one floated,or should I say, 'sunk', by the US navy, developed FROM a > > sci-fi book, that involes barge-based nuclear power plants. They sink > > the plant and cause it to into a semi-meltdown mode. This warms a > > section of the ocean, which is the only known way hurricanes pick up > > energy. The run-away meltdown causes a super-storm and one that is > > *stationary*. They actually pay people to come up with ways to do > > this.
> > David
> So Project Popeye wasn't put into operation by the Pentagon in > Vietnam? > 200 didn't die in a flash flood in South Dakota according to the > Boston Globe > There was no 1995 US air force report about weaponizing the weather? > Roelof says they have new tools to get the basic answers that we > couldn't get back in the 70-90's?
> O assume Einde must be correct as after all weather modification > programmes and the science backing it is stuck in the era of the > Vietnam war?
> TO date NONE of you have produced one IOTA of EVIDENCE to counterract > these public statements by US government officials in the imperialist > media.
> Not that evidence was ever your strong point. But when you bring in > sci-fi, queers, psychosis as a way to avoid the issues then its clear > you have a hidden agenda, in justifying environmental intervention... > ie imperialist barbarism via the back door. First they blow up your > country then they want to come in to take over the spoils under guise > of ...feeding the poor and the hungry, the ultimate 'guilt trip' of > every globalist.
The only 'evidence' you bring in is the very common-knowledge fact that the US (and every country) has been interested in weather-mod for decades. You haven't produced one IOTA (is "iota" in English the same as it in Greek?) of evidence that proves: 1. The US (or any country in the world) has a way of manipulating the weather beyond silver-iodine seeding and 2. that the US (or any other country) has ever done it. None. Just conjecture. In otherwords sicence fiction.
This is the kind of insipid discussion that occurs when basic issues, such as the nature of conspirativism, are pushed under the table, by those lacking the courage to address fundamentals (and perhaps the brains).
srd
On May 18, 2:19 pm, nada <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 2:13 pm, Vngelis <meberr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 18, 9:56 pm, nada <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Reply: "'minister of Zoroastrianism"
> > > The only seious weather mod program I saw that makes real sense is the > > > one floated,or should I say, 'sunk', by the US navy, developed FROM a > > > sci-fi book, that involes barge-based nuclear power plants. They sink > > > the plant and cause it to into a semi-meltdown mode. This warms a > > > section of the ocean, which is the only known way hurricanes pick up > > > energy. The run-away meltdown causes a super-storm and one that is > > > *stationary*. They actually pay people to come up with ways to do > > > this.
> > > David
> > So Project Popeye wasn't put into operation by the Pentagon in > > Vietnam? > > 200 didn't die in a flash flood in South Dakota according to the > > Boston Globe > > There was no 1995 US air force report about weaponizing the weather? > > Roelof says they have new tools to get the basic answers that we > > couldn't get back in the 70-90's?
> > O assume Einde must be correct as after all weather modification > > programmes and the science backing it is stuck in the era of the > > Vietnam war?
> > TO date NONE of you have produced one IOTA of EVIDENCE to counterract > > these public statements by US government officials in the imperialist > > media.
> > Not that evidence was ever your strong point. But when you bring in > > sci-fi, queers, psychosis as a way to avoid the issues then its clear > > you have a hidden agenda, in justifying environmental intervention... > > ie imperialist barbarism via the back door. First they blow up your > > country then they want to come in to take over the spoils under guise > > of ...feeding the poor and the hungry, the ultimate 'guilt trip' of > > every globalist.
> The only 'evidence' you bring in is the very common-knowledge fact > that the US (and every country) has been interested in weather-mod for > decades. You haven't produced one IOTA (is "iota" in English the same > as it in Greek?) of evidence that proves: 1. The US (or any country in > the world) has a way of manipulating the weather beyond silver-iodine > seeding and 2. that the US (or any other country) has ever done it. > None. Just conjecture. In otherwords sicence fiction.
Vngelis wrote: > Don't like the weather? Change it > The weird science of weather modification makes a comeback
If you read the whole article through to teh end you'll see that even though some scientists would like to be abloe to control teh weather and make efforts to do so weatehr systems are so complex that even if some aspects of weather control were feasible, i.e. certain effects could be produced at will, the overall results would be totally unpredictable.
Do you actually read the stuff you post here or do you simply look at the headline?
> O assume Einde must be correct as after all weather modification > programmes and the science backing it is stuck in the era of the > Vietnam war?
I have not said that. What I've argued is that the leap from the relatively low tech efforts with cloud seeding in the 60s and 70s (incidentaloly this is the technology the Chinese want to use to prevent rain in Beijing during the Olympics) to the type of technology required to to create let alone steer a tropical storm is way too large.
If they had the technology to create such huge quantities of energy there would be no problems concerning peak oil as the petroleum economy would be technologically obsolete.
> Photographic evidence of weird weather formations prior to the > earthquake and strange animal behaviour...
> vngelis
The Chinese have noted wierd animal per-quake behavoir for a hundred years. This is why they are the best predictors of earthquakes in the world (one of the reasons). If you do a google search for china earthquake prediction you'll come up with links for this. Absolutely nothing new here. Care to try again?
> > Photographic evidence of weird weather formations prior to the > > earthquake and strange animal behaviour...
> > vngelis
> The Chinese have noted wierd animal per-quake behavoir for a hundred > years. This is why they are the best predictors of earthquakes in the > world (one of the reasons). If you do a google search for china > earthquake prediction you'll come up with links for this. Absolutely > nothing new here. Care to try again?
> David
You must have missed the weather formations or are you somewhat dyslexic you only read what you want to? The pictures of the skies and the video?
All normal run of the mill events or do they occur just prior to earthquakes? Care to try again? vngelis
> > > Photographic evidence of weird weather formations prior to the > > > earthquake and strange animal behaviour...
> > > vngelis
> > The Chinese have noted wierd animal per-quake behavoir for a hundred > > years. This is why they are the best predictors of earthquakes in the > > world (one of the reasons). If you do a google search for china > > earthquake prediction you'll come up with links for this. Absolutely > > nothing new here. Care to try again?
> > David
> You must have missed the weather formations or are you somewhat > dyslexic you only read what you want to?
Nice weather formations. See hight linear stratus clouds a few times a year (without earth quakes).
> The pictures of the skies and the video?
Yes...unusual but not unique. The Chinese themselves find nothing odd about it except that it forewarns of earth quakes.
> All normal run of the mill events or do they occur just prior to > earthquakes?
You need to get checked out. I guess you know more about this than the Chinese themselves who excel in earthquake prediction.
> > > > Photographic evidence of weird weather formations prior to the > > > > earthquake and strange animal behaviour...
> > > > vngelis
> > > The Chinese have noted wierd animal per-quake behavoir for a hundred > > > years. This is why they are the best predictors of earthquakes in the > > > world (one of the reasons). If you do a google search for china > > > earthquake prediction you'll come up with links for this. Absolutely > > > nothing new here. Care to try again?
> > > David
> > You must have missed the weather formations or are you somewhat > > dyslexic you only read what you want to?
> Nice weather formations. See hight linear stratus clouds a few times a > year (without earth quakes).
> > The pictures of the skies and the video?
> Yes...unusual but not unique. The Chinese themselves find nothing odd > about it except that it forewarns of earth quakes.
> > All normal run of the mill events or do they occur just prior to > > earthquakes?
> You need to get checked out. I guess you know more about this than the > Chinese themselves who excel in earthquake prediction.
Well its funny you should say that as they have started to find these funny weather patters since 1990 and have noted them to the Iranians and the earthquakes they have had. But prey you seem to know something yet you keep Project 2025 silent?
Now why would that be? Your handlers dont like all the information to be revealed at once? vngelis
