PDA

View Full Version : American Global Warming WMDs, now with lasers!



Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-18, 03:51 PM
Russian Scholar Warns Of 'Secret' U.S. Climate Change Weapon (http://www.rferl.org/content/Russian_Scholar_Warns_Of_Secret_US_Climate_Change_ Weapon/2114381.html)


Areshev voiced suspicions about the High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP), funded by the U.S. Defense Department and the University of Alaska.

HAARP, which has long been the target of conspiracy theorists, analyzes the ionosphere and seeks to develop technologies to improve radio communications, surveillance, and missile detection.

Areshev writes, however, that its true aim is to create new weapons of mass destruction "in order to destabilize environmental and agricultural systems in local countries."

*snip*

Areshev's article also references an unmanned spacecraft X-37B, an orbital test vehicle the Pentagon launched in April 2010. The Pentagon calls X-37B a prototype for a new "space plane" that could take people and equipment to and from space stations. Areshev, however, alleges that the X-378 carries "laser weaponry" and could be a key component in the Pentagon's climate-change arsenal.


Hmmmm.

Wow.

Garrison
2010-Aug-18, 04:03 PM
I think someone has watched this movie once too often:

Real Genius (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/)

On a serious note I can't find any recent articles, later than may 2010 that is, on the x-37B, anyone know if it's still orbiting?

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-18, 04:06 PM
I think someone has watched this movie once too often:

Real Genius (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/)

On a serious note I can't find any recent articles, later than may 2010 that is, on the x-37B, anyone know if it's still orbiting?

Excellent movie. I'm pretty sure mythbusters tried to do the whole 'exploding house' popcorn trick and couldn't get it to work though.

That would be one hell of a bunker buster if you could pull it off. ;D

LaurelHS
2010-Aug-18, 04:14 PM
I wasn't aware that being a political scientist like Areshev automatically makes you an expert on global warming and weapons technology.

Garrison
2010-Aug-18, 04:25 PM
I saw that Mythbusters episode, I think they popped one kernel. :)

On the topic at hand this is the most powerful laser the USAF has managed to fly, it has I believe been successfully tested since the article was written:

Airborne Laser (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/)

Even if you could pack that into the X-37B, or some larger successor, I don't see how that amount of energy is going to affect global weather patterns when you compare it to the amount of solar energy received by the earth every day.

Solar Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy#Energy_from_the_Sun)


Such a weapon would be strictly tactical, not strategic and I suspect it would be used for targeting satellites or ICBM's, not changing the weather.

NEOWatcher
2010-Aug-18, 04:39 PM
Areshev agrees that it is also hot in the United States, but notes that the United States is significantly farther south than Russia, meaning that such high temperatures are not so surprising there.
And Antarctica is even farther still. :wall:

A little Sesame Street primer here.
Hot is to hotter, as south is to Farther south.


He insisted, however, that he was not a conspiracy theorist.

"My comments were not made in order to accuse the U.S., or any other country, of consciously influencing Russia," Areshev said. "That would be quite ridiculous."
So, as a "scientist", shouldn't he have known not to jump to conclusions?


Asked whether or not Russia was also experimenting with climate-control methods, Areshev said since he was not a member of the government, he did not have information about such projects.
Yet he knows about the American projects. :hand:

JayUtah
2010-Aug-18, 05:10 PM
Excellent movie.

Agreed; it's in my permanent library.

A trivial side-note: Gabe Jarrett, the young actor who played Mitch in that movie, also appears as a Trench flight controller in the movie Apollo 13.

Swift
2010-Aug-18, 05:28 PM
And of course, our favorite piece of Alaska is to blame (from the linked article):

In the article, Areshev voiced suspicions about the High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP), funded by the U.S. Defense Department and the University of Alaska.

HAARP, which has long been the target of conspiracy theorists, analyzes the ionosphere and seeks to develop technologies to improve radio communications, surveillance, and missile detection.

Areshev writes, however, that its true aim is to create new weapons of mass destruction "in order to destabilize environmental and agricultural systems in local countries."

PetersCreek
2010-Aug-18, 05:32 PM
And of course, our favorite piece of Alaska is to blame...

Busted. I take full responsibility.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-18, 05:55 PM
Busted. I take full responsibility.

Conspiracy vindicated. :clap:

BigDon
2010-Aug-18, 05:59 PM
Busted. I take full responsibility.

Noble, but nice try. Obviously this is Sarah's fault. (Since George is getting to far away to be media relevant.)

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-18, 06:05 PM
Noble, but nice try. Obviously this is Sarah's fault. (Since George is getting to far away to be media relevant.)

Either way, do we notify the Russians so the can counterattack with their doomsday machine or just let them burn?

As a sidenote, this summer has been ridiculous for heat. And we had a massive amount of lightning last night that was right over our heads but so high up in the atmosphere there was no thunder. Wierd.

Swift
2010-Aug-18, 06:33 PM
Noble, but nice try. Obviously this is Sarah's fault. (Since George is getting to far away to be media relevant.)
You really think Sarah Jessica Parker had something to do with this? And I'm sure George Lopez is very upset that you don't think he is relevant. :D

Swift gets serious and puts on moderator hat - let's leave anything with even a mild resemblance to politics out of this thread

Gillianren
2010-Aug-18, 06:37 PM
George Lopez was never relevant.

BigDon
2010-Aug-18, 07:20 PM
You really think Sarah Jessica Parker had something to do with this? And I'm sure George Lopez is very upset that you don't think he is relevant. :D

Swift gets serious and puts on moderator hat - let's leave anything with even a mild resemblance to politics out of this thread

Mr. Moderator, that was a comment on the media.

kleindoofy
2010-Aug-18, 07:25 PM
I wasn't aware that being a political scientist like Areshev automatically makes you an expert on global warming and weapons technology.
In this day and age of the internet, even living in mommy's cellar will make you an expert on almost anything.

NGCHunter
2010-Aug-18, 07:32 PM
On a serious note I can't find any recent articles, later than may 2010 that is, on the x-37B, anyone know if it's still orbiting?

I'm not 100% sure of its current status, but as of July 18th it was still in orbit:
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jul-2010/0160.html
The last mention of an observation was on July 21st:
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jul-2010/0199.html
The latest TLE's I can find for the X-37 are dated July 29th.
I haven't heard anything about it landing though, so it's probably still up there.

LaurelHS
2010-Aug-18, 07:35 PM
Either way, do we notify the Russians so the can counterattack with their doomsday machine or just let them burn?

As a sidenote, this summer has been ridiculous for heat. And we had a massive amount of lightning last night that was right over our heads but so high up in the atmosphere there was no thunder. Wierd.

Why is this weird? I thought heat lightning (http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/274/) was common.

Shaula
2010-Aug-18, 08:12 PM
Either way, do we notify the Russians so the can counterattack with their doomsday machine or just let them burn?
Terror Firma should be required reading for this board! A conspiracy to make people believe in conspiracies threatens the world... I only mention it here because it touched on HAARP, of course, and says something like "little did the conspiracy theorists know that system had been running on 'nuclear winter' mode for years to counteract the greenhouse effect"

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-19, 12:12 AM
Why is this weird? I thought heat lightning (http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/274/) was common.

It is, but the majority of the strikes looked directly above us and we never heard a peep. This would seem to imply it quite high up in the atmosphere to not even hear a whisper of thunder.

Just an oddity is all.

BigDon
2010-Aug-19, 02:25 AM
Why is this weird? I thought heat lightning (http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/274/) was common.

I used to watch that in Tennessee a lot when I was there in A school at NAS Memphis. That was also the first place I saw fireflies. Travel does broaden ones horizons.

CJSF
2010-Aug-19, 02:30 AM
It is more likely there was some sort of acoustic shadow due to atmospheric conditions. If it was directly above you, at the highest the lighting would have been within about 7 miles of you (less than 10 miles anyway - the most vigoursly uplifted storm tops might exceed 50,000 ft or so), and likely closer. Normally this would be very audible (depending on the local ambient sound, of course).

I always understood "heat" lightning to be when the lightning from distant storms over the horizon from one's location is seen lighting up the sky.

CJSF

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-19, 03:08 AM
It is more likely there was some sort of acoustic shadow due to atmospheric conditions. If it was directly above you, at the highest the lighting would have been within about 7 miles of you (less than 10 miles anyway - the most vigoursly uplifted storm tops might exceed 50,000 ft or so), and likely closer. Normally this would be very audible (depending on the local ambient sound, of course).

I always understood "heat" lightning to be when the lightning from distant storms over the horizon from one's location is seen lighting up the sky.

CJSF

Well, we were up on a hilltop within a range of mountains in western Newfoundland. A lot of the strikes were off in the distance, but there were quite a few that couldn't be anywhere but overhead and looked to be cloud to cloud. But not so much as a whisper of thunder. Was quite strange.

We did see a few anvil crawlers off in the distance though. Very nice.

Anyways, back to America's unprovoked Global Warming attack on Russia!

Glom
2010-Aug-19, 07:04 AM
Climate change weapon? Reminds me of the South Park episode 'The Day Before the Day After Tomorrow', when everyone panics about global warming and starts running away from it as though it were a Balrog. CLIMATE CHANGE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!

And why are the weapons alleged by these conspiracy theorists always so convoluted? America has nuclear weapons. They don't need to invent technobabble devices to defeat their enemies.

LaurelHS
2010-Aug-19, 03:50 PM
There have been heat waves in Russia before. Temperatures hit 37.5 degrees Celsius in July 1920. Was that also an American "unprovoked Global Warming attack"? What about the 2007 Asian heat wave?
http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20100729/159991401.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article1862694.ece

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-19, 04:03 PM
Ahem, just so you know, I'm not advocating this 'conspiracy', just bringing it forward.

Feel free to poke fun and laugh, just don't expect me to defend it.

LaurelHS
2010-Aug-19, 04:10 PM
A cold front just hit Moscow. Did the Americans cause this as well? Are they showing Russia some mercy after their unprovoked global warming attack?

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-19, 04:25 PM
A cold front just hit Moscow. Did the Americans cause this as well? Are they showing Russia some mercy after their unprovoked global warming attack?

Perhaps they realized the Ruskies were on to them and decided to ease off.

Jim
2010-Aug-19, 04:46 PM
Perhaps they realized the Ruskies were on to them and decided to ease off.

On the off chance you're right...

Yeah, well, we Texans know about it, too, fellas!

novaderrik
2010-Aug-20, 04:54 AM
Climate change weapon? Reminds me of the South Park episode 'The Day Before the Day After Tomorrow', when everyone panics about global warming and starts running away from it as though it were a Balrog. CLIMATE CHANGE DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!

And why are the weapons alleged by these conspiracy theorists always so convoluted? America has nuclear weapons. They don't need to invent technobabble devices to defeat their enemies.

i believe that it was called "two days before the day after tomorrow".
definitely one of the better episodes.

swampyankee
2010-Aug-20, 04:33 PM
If the US is going to destabilize the climates of local countries, there's not that many places that actually abut the US. Most USians who do not wear tinfoil hats do not consider Canada a threat, and making things worse in Mexico would probably be less than beneficial to the US.

It is nice to know that there are some prominent Russians (or at least prominent enough to make the news on Radio Free Europe) who seem to wear tinfoil hats, at least in private. Or is July 30 the Russian analogue to April 1?

Garrison
2010-Aug-20, 06:11 PM
If the US is going to destabilize the climates of local countries, there's not that many places that actually abut the US. Most USians who do not wear tinfoil hats do not consider Canada a threat, and making things worse in Mexico would probably be less than beneficial to the US.

It is nice to know that there are some prominent Russians (or at least prominent enough to make the news on Radio Free Europe) who seem to wear tinfoil hats, at least in private. Or is July 30 the Russian analogue to April 1?

Climate change weapons wouldn't make a lot of sense. We know global weather patterns interact, so how do you guarantee that a baking hot Russia doesn't translate into crop ruining rain and floods in some friendly territory?

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-20, 07:17 PM
How much could all the oil burning in the gulf contribute to climate change?

Swift
2010-Aug-21, 06:00 PM
How much could all the oil burning in the gulf contribute to climate change?
I saw the number somewhere and the answer was very little. IIRC, the entire spill was equivalent to a couple of days worth of fossil fuel use in the US. And if the oil had gone where it was supposed to, up a pipe and to a refinery, it would have eventually been burned anyway.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-22, 04:35 PM
I saw the number somewhere and the answer was very little. IIRC, the entire spill was equivalent to a couple of days worth of fossil fuel use in the US. And if the oil had gone where it was supposed to, up a pipe and to a refinery, it would have eventually been burned anyway.

Just curious. I know Hurricane Andrew, a catergory 5 hurricane, followed the year after the first Gulf War. Lots of oil fields burned during that time.

Glom
2010-Aug-22, 09:08 PM
i believe that it was called "two days before the day after tomorrow".
definitely one of the better episodes.

Also the bit with the Jew gold.

Abaddon
2010-Aug-23, 01:50 AM
Also the bit with the Jew gold.

No offence but this is getting under my skin right now. Where did this "ebil joos" notion originate?

And no I am not jewish nor any of my family tree, I just dont get it. where did this come from?

swampyankee
2010-Aug-23, 01:59 AM
I'm not a fan of South Park, but what I know of it is that the show usually treads heavily on the toes of good taste.

NickW
2010-Aug-23, 08:46 AM
While South Park isn't the most tasteful show, it is a show that is highly skeptical about the same issues that get discussed here.

Strange
2010-Aug-23, 09:34 AM
No offence but this is getting under my skin right now. Where did this "ebil joos" notion originate?

We probably can't discuss this too much without getting into areas that are problematic for BAUT. But it goes back a long way. Some of it is just the perennial dislike of the "other". I suspect Gypsies and Jews have got the rough end of this for centuries because they can be considered "outsiders" by almost every country, and therefore become scapegoats in times of trouble. Although of course, for balance, one should note that there have been long periods when Jews have been an integral part of various societies, including some (possibly) suprising cases such as Spain under the Moors, certain periods in the history of Istanbul, etc.

There has also been, at times, tension between some Christians and Judaism because of a certain well-known death... This has undoubtedly been exploited at times for political purposes. But we had better leave that there.

Bobbar
2010-Aug-23, 12:30 PM
Just curious. I know Hurricane Andrew, a catergory 5 hurricane, followed the year after the first Gulf War. Lots of oil fields burned during that time.

There were what, 2 or 3 hurricanes that season? The only one to make landfall MUST have been caused by man by an activity he did the previous year.

The oil fires burned about 6 million bbl a day for 10 months, thats a little less oil than what is burned by America every 90 days.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-24, 05:46 AM
There were what, 2 or 3 hurricanes that season? The only one to make landfall MUST have been caused by man by an activity he did the previous year.

The oil fires burned about 6 million bbl a day for 10 months, thats a little less oil than what is burned by America every 90 days.

Current world oil consumption is around 86 million barrels a day. An increase of 6 million barrels a day would amount to a 7% increase in the total world oil consumption, which seems like a fairly high spike to me. In terms of countries, it's almost like adding another China or Japan to the world for 10 months. They currently consume 7.5 and 5 million barrels a day each.

Plus, when it comes to lost oil, I have my doubts as to how much the estimates have been lowballed. The current 'Gulf' situation would be a good example.

And it wasn't just that it was a hurricane making landfall in the US, it was a catergory 5 hurricane making landfall in the US, which is slightly unusual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes#Landfalls).

Bobbar
2010-Aug-24, 12:22 PM
Current world oil consumption is around 86 million barrels a day. An increase of 6 million barrels a day would amount to a 7% increase in the total world oil consumption, which seems like a fairly high spike to me. In terms of countries, it's almost like adding another China or Japan to the world for 10 months. They currently consume 7.5 and 5 million barrels a day each.

Plus, when it comes to lost oil, I have my doubts as to how much the estimates have been lowballed. The current 'Gulf' situation would be a good example.

And it wasn't just that it was a hurricane making landfall in the US, it was a catergory 5 hurricane making landfall in the US, which is slightly unusual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes#Landfalls).

Right, but did that event have any measurable affect? It sure didn't if you're only looking at hurricanes from the following year. It was a light season, one of many.

And from looking at the chart you linked, cat 5 landfalls look totally normal, cat 5 and cat 4 have an equal number of landfalls.

Looks to me like the '92 season was business as usual.

CJSF
2010-Aug-24, 01:49 PM
Perhaps I missed it (and I lack the motivation to go back and read for it), but what the heck do hurricanes have to do with either the original post or with the burning off of oil?

CJSF

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-24, 02:17 PM
Right, but did that event have any measurable affect? It sure didn't if you're only looking at hurricanes from the following year. It was a light season, one of many.

And from looking at the chart you linked, cat 5 landfalls look totally normal, cat 5 and cat 4 have an equal number of landfalls.

Looks to me like the '92 season was business as usual.

Except there catergory 5 landfalls in the continental US are a rarity. Normally a catergory 5 hurricane ends up much further south. The '92 season was one of the most destructive on record, btw. The name 'Andrew' had to be retired.

It's kind of misleading to suggest that cause and effect in this situation should follow immediately. Have you ever studied process control? Sometimes a controlled variable doesn't respond immediately to changes in the manipulated variable, depending on the capacitance of the system.

NEOWatcher
2010-Aug-24, 02:18 PM
... or with the burning off of oil?
Burning oil causing hurricanes (or another method of controlling the weather).
No, I don't subscribe to that idea.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-24, 02:31 PM
Burning oil causing hurricanes (or another method of controlling the weather).
No, I don't subscribe to that idea.

Tsk.

Burning oil alters weather patterns. I'm pretty sure the use of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial revolution has demonstrated that to anyone who believe GW is real.

Unless you wanna say that Hurricane Andrew was an Iraqi counter-attack.

NEOWatcher
2010-Aug-24, 02:34 PM
The '92 season was one of the most destructive on record, btw.
Really? That's not what wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Hurricane_of_1935).

The 1935 Labor Day hurricane ... The second tropical cyclone, second hurricane, and second intense hurricane of the season marked the most destructive Atlantic hurricane of the United States;

And the amount of destruction is only a result of the combination of intensity, location and duration. So; it's not a good indicator of the intensity of a season.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-24, 02:41 PM
Really? That's not what wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day_Hurricane_of_1935).


And the amount of destruction is only a result of the combination of intensity, location and duration. So; it's not a good indicator of the intensity of a season.

I said 'one of', one of three if you want to be specific. Only 3 catergory 5 hurricanes made landfall in the continental US during the last century. The labour day hurricane, camille and andrew. There was a global temperature spike during the late 30s that could explain the labour day hurricane, the 90s were hot to begin with, but I don't know of a similar correlation for camille.

NEOWatcher
2010-Aug-24, 03:14 PM
I said 'one of'
Ooops. Sorry about that.

Bobbar
2010-Aug-24, 03:27 PM
Except there catergory 5 landfalls in the continental US are a rarity. Normally a catergory 5 hurricane ends up much further south. The '92 season was one of the most destructive on record, btw. The name 'Andrew' had to be retired.

It's kind of misleading to suggest that cause and effect in this situation should follow immediately. Have you ever studied process control? Sometimes a controlled variable doesn't respond immediately to changes in the manipulated variable, depending on the capacitance of the system.

Ok then. Yes, cat 5 landfalls on the US are rare. But, why would you only be looking at the US? The bigger picture says every thing was pretty darn normal, if not sub par for that year.

The year after is immediately following. Changes in climate happen over MANY years, tens of years, not one.

Gillianren
2010-Aug-24, 04:13 PM
I said 'one of', one of three if you want to be specific. Only 3 catergory 5 hurricanes made landfall in the continental US during the last century. The labour day hurricane, camille and andrew. There was a global temperature spike during the late 30s that could explain the labour day hurricane, the 90s were hot to begin with, but I don't know of a similar correlation for camille.

"Catergory" 5 is not the only level which produces enormous devastation upon landfall. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 was only a category 4 upon landfall. It's considered the most deadly hurricane in US history, and the third-most deadly Atlantic hurricane in recorded history. And that's just talking about deaths on the US mainland, which--as pointed out--is leaving out quite a lot of hurricane country.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-24, 05:59 PM
Ok then. Yes, cat 5 landfalls on the US are rare. But, why would you only be looking at the US? The bigger picture says every thing was pretty darn normal, if not sub par for that year.

The year after is immediately following. Changes in climate happen over MANY years, tens of years, not one.

Having a country like Japan double its oil consumption is an unusual occurance. One that would normally occur over many many years.

Having american oil consumption go up by 30% overnight for a period of 10 months would be a similar situation.


"Catergory" 5 is not the only level which produces enormous devastation upon landfall. The Galveston hurricane of 1900 was only a category 4 upon landfall. It's considered the most deadly hurricane in US history, and the third-most deadly Atlantic hurricane in recorded history. And that's just talking about deaths on the US mainland, which--as pointed out--is leaving out quite a lot of hurricane country.

I'm not talking about devastation, really. I'm talking about changing weather patterns. The level of a hurricane is measured by its windspeed, not the amount of damage it does.

CJSF
2010-Aug-24, 06:09 PM
It is NOT measured solely by windspeed. It is measured by the total amount of energy imparted to the storm. Yes, windspeed is highly correlated to that energy; howerver, a very large-area storm with only category 2 or 3 winds can have the same overall energy as a category 4 or 5 storm. At times this is expressed by the storm surges these huge storms can produce, but even then, it's not the only measure.

CJSF

MartianMarvin
2010-Aug-24, 07:01 PM
Just curious. I know Hurricane Andrew, a catergory 5 hurricane, followed the year after the first Gulf War. Lots of oil fields burned during that time.
Would you be so kind as to show us the connection between these two events? I am at a complete loss as to how the burning oil fields could have any influence on Atlantic hurricanes.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-25, 05:41 AM
Would you be so kind as to show us the connection between these two events? I am at a complete loss as to how the burning oil fields could have any influence on Atlantic hurricanes.

A sudden increase in greenhouse gases?


Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely. Recent work indicates that recovery from a large input of atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels will result in an effective lifetime of tens of thousands of years.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-25, 06:18 AM
Could someone tell me more about this paper (http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf)?

I'm not familiar with most of the jargon.

I'm wondering about the data sets on page 16, specifically the peak that appears just after 1991.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-26, 02:03 PM
No one?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Aug-26, 02:30 PM
It would likely have helped a lot if you had listed the title and authors.

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi

It was discussed here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107022-William-s-Not-AGW-thread.?p=1780979#post1780979), with the point being it has some bad flaws in its analysis.

Bobbar
2010-Aug-26, 02:42 PM
Could someone tell me more about this paper (http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf)?

I'm not familiar with most of the jargon.

I'm wondering about the data sets on page 16, specifically the peak that appears just after 1991.

An anomaly caused by a volcanic eruption?



Note that appreciable fluctuations of the anomalies are due to El Niņo events (in
1982/83 1986/87, 1991/92, and 1997/98), La Niņa events (in 1988/90), and Pinatubo
eruption (in 1991)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

That was a pretty major event. It certainly would have more influence than some oil fields burning.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-26, 03:29 PM
An anomaly caused by a volcanic eruption?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo

That was a pretty major event. It certainly would have more influence than some oil fields burning.

Zing.

Ok, you win.

The Earth is just conspiring against us.

Bobbar
2010-Aug-26, 03:54 PM
Zing.

Ok, you win.

The Earth is just conspiring against us.

;)

Oh I'm sure there are some out there that will try to find a man-made reason for the eruption.

And around and around we go.

MartianMarvin
2010-Aug-26, 04:15 PM
A sudden increase in greenhouse gases?

Sounds like you are still developing your hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that, but you may want to hold your claims in check until after you've done the research.

The wiki quote doesn't support your claim, either. It suggests that the more CO2 that is released, the longer it stays in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, and that's it. Thus, if the oil well CO2 release were so significant as to bring about hurricane Andrew, the CO2 would almost certainly still be in the atmosphere, and would still be causing more hurricanes like Andrew.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-26, 05:16 PM
Sounds like you are still developing your hypothesis. Nothing wrong with that, but you may want to hold your claims in check until after you've done the research.

The wiki quote doesn't support your claim, either. It suggests that the more CO2 that is released, the longer it stays in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, and that's it. Thus, if the oil well CO2 release were so significant as to bring about hurricane Andrew, the CO2 would almost certainly still be in the atmosphere, and would still be causing more hurricanes like Andrew.

Not necessarily.

Have you ever studied process control? A process can oscillate back and forth for quite a while before settling back into more of a steady state.

However, Bobbar seems to have trumped oil burning with Volcanic eruption, which is a much more reasonable explanation for the spike in the graph.

MartianMarvin
2010-Aug-26, 05:29 PM
I am pursuing your proposed connection between the oil well fires and hurricane Andrew. What does the graph have to do with anything? If process control can provide the framework for your connection, by all means, present it. I'll ask questions if I have any.

Edited to add: While the Mount Pinatubo eruption lead to higher temperatures in the stratosphere (which could explain the spike in the red data (ERBE) graph - it's a measurement of the change in flux (Watts per meter) of the outgoing long-wave radiation near the top of the atmosphere), it also led to decreased surface temperatures world-wide.

Sir Knots A Lot
2010-Aug-28, 03:13 AM
I am pursuing your proposed connection between the oil well fires and hurricane Andrew. What does the graph have to do with anything? If process control can provide the framework for your connection, by all means, present it. I'll ask questions if I have any.

Edited to add: While the Mount Pinatubo eruption lead to higher temperatures in the stratosphere (which could explain the spike in the red data (ERBE) graph - it's a measurement of the change in flux (Watts per meter) of the outgoing long-wave radiation near the top of the atmosphere), it also led to decreased surface temperatures world-wide.

Well, the only other evidence I would have looked at would be Katrina. It was a particularly devastating Hurricane that occured while the oil wells were burning during the second Gulf war.

I don't believe the amount of oil burned in the gulf of mexico could compare to that burned in the two Iraq wars.

As a sidenote... the BP oil spill will probably end up being remembered as the Black President oil spill. Which is a shame. I like Obama. I'm hoping he legalizes marijuana in his second term.

Sticks
2010-Aug-28, 05:58 AM
Violation of the no politics rule after a number of infractions earns Sir Knots A Lot a suspension

Meanwhile this thread is locked pending moderator discussions