Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 116

Thread: Scientific evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global warming revisited

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542

    Scientific evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global warming revisited

    The following details are the results of the tracking of 3 discarded aerospace Rocket Bodies from sovereign country sponsored enterprises, that have been falling from great heights outside of Australian sovereign territory to low heights within Australian sovereign borders in very short time spans during our recent historic climate change events, that started after mid November 2019. All of these Rocket Bodies have either re-entered at the time of this post or are expected to re-enter within the same one week period by the US Strategic Command.

    The following falling tracked space junk contributed to over 250mm-300mm (over 10-12 inches) of rainfall in a short timespan, to parts of South East Queensland Australia in the mid evening and morning of the 17th and 18th of January 2020, that caused much flooding damage. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) should/must/does use this information to make their accurate projections for our recent historic large heatwave/rainfall events and their scientists and other global scientists should also be able to verify this, or provide more accurate evidence for these offenses, and identify/reproduce the true drivers behind these events, that have effectively fanned our dire national bushfires and flooding emergencies over the last month, and have also killed many hundreds of thousands of native and domestic animals, destroyed many thousands of forest acres and grasslands and caused much economic damage to our sovereign nation, from their own data sets.

    The projected offenses below may change as the actual locations and altitudes will change as new or more accurate future/past measurements are recorded/revealed, all of the projections/space junk plots referred to below are from the Satview.org real time tracker and are attached as image files within the 3 pages of this OP. I have included the projected events as the Australian BOM predicts more rain and storms on these days and I have included the last event as it was in the area at the time, as it will be in the near future, and some of the current and projected data may be incorrectly recorded on Satview.org.

    The offending space junk Rocket Bodies and all the evidence in this very first presented instance, were produced from reproduce-able tracking maps and past/future plots/projections, and are as follows:

    (1) KZ-1A R/C - PRC Rocket Body - Peoples Republic of China - Launched on November 13th 2019 from Jiquan Satellite Launch Centre CHINA - Re-entered on January 18th 2020 at 05:00am AEST

    - Date, Time (AEST), Altitude, Where, Total Altitude drop, Total Altitude drop time
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KZ-1A RB - 10-05pm 17th AEST.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	189.4 KB 
ID:	24803
    -17-01-2020, 10:05pm, 440.88km, South Atlantic near Antarctica
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KZ-1A RB - 10-35pm 17th AEST.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	190.6 KB 
ID:	24804
    -17-01-2020, 10:35pm, 180.86km, Australia, 260.02km, 30 minutes

    (2) CZ-3B R/C - PRC Rocket Body - Peoples Republic of China - Launched on November 18th 2019 from Xichang Space Centre CHINA- Projected Re-entry on January 22nd 2020 at 1:20am AEST +/- 95 minutes

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ-3B RB.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	200.0 KB 
ID:	24809

    - Date, Time (AEST), Altitude, Where, Total Altitude drop, Total Altitude drop time
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ-3B RB - 08-20pm 17th AEST.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	187.3 KB 
ID:	24810
    - 17-01-2020, 08:20pm, 500.19km, Africa west coast
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ-3B RB - 09-05pm 17th AEST.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	189.7 KB 
ID:	24811
    - 17-01-2020, 09:05pm, 125.41km, Australia, 374.78km, 45 minutes

    OP continued on page 2 due to page image limit
    Last edited by LaurieAG; 2020-Jan-20 at 05:36 PM. Reason: Layout, clarification, remove extra title

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542
    (2) CZ-3B R/C - PRC Rocket Body - Continued

    - Projected Date, Time (AEST), Altitude, Where, Total Altitude drop, Total Altitude drop time
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ-3B RB - 04-25pm 20th AEST.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	194.1 KB 
ID:	24812
    - 20-01-2020, 04:25pm, 500.36km, Africa
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ-3B RB - 04-55pm 20th AEST.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	190.1 KB 
ID:	24813
    - 20-01-2020, 04:55pm, 227.42km, Australia, 272.94km, 30 minutes

    - Projected Date, Time (AEST), Altitude, Where, Total Altitude drop, Total Altitude drop time
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ-3B RB - 04-35pm 21st AEST.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	186.1 KB 
ID:	24814
    - 21-01-2020, 04:35pm, 500.36km, Africa
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CZ-3B RB - 05-05pm 21st AEST.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	193.2 KB 
ID:	24815
    - 21-01-2020, 05:05pm, 254.88km, Australia, 245.48km, 30 minutes

    OP continued on page 3 due to page image limit.
    Last edited by LaurieAG; 2020-Jan-20 at 05:26 PM. Reason: Layout, corrections

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542
    (3) PSLB R/C - ISRO Rocket Body - INDIA - Launched on April 1st????? 2019 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharicota INDIA - Projected Re-entry on January 24 at 01:00am AEST 2020 +/- 95 minutes

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PSLV RB.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	205.3 KB 
ID:	24816

    - Date, Time (AEST), Altitude, Where, Total Altitude drop, Total Altitude drop time
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PSLV RB - 00-30am 18th AEST.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	188.8 KB 
ID:	24817
    - 18-01-2020, 00:30am, 210.75km, Africa
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PSLV RB - 01-05am 18th AEST.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	193.7 KB 
ID:	24818
    - 18-01-2020, 01:05am, 198.86km, Australia, 11.89km, 35 minutes

    End of OP.
    Last edited by LaurieAG; 2020-Jan-20 at 05:27 PM. Reason: Layout

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    248
    You think reentering space junk contributes to rainfall and heat waves?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,676
    Australia was hit by no less than Skylab in 1979, but that created no chaotic weather. Did kill a rabbit, though.

    https://www.space.com/21092-skylab-s...is-photos.html
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,998
    Roger's reminder of Skylab's fall in Australia makes an important point: For this to be considered scientific evidence, you need to include all the other space junk that has fallen to Earth over the years. Otherwise, it's just cherry picking. And, what is the proposed mechanism for weather alteration by this falling stuff?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,946
    Even if falling space junk could influence rainfall (which is not impossible, but is not well supported by the evidence presented) I don't see how it is relevant to global climate change. Are you suggesting that the rate at which stuff falls to earth correlates with global temperature change?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,535
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    The following details are the results of the tracking of 3 discarded aerospace Rocket Bodies from sovereign country sponsored enterprises, that have been falling from great heights outside of Australian sovereign territory to low heights within Australian sovereign borders in very short time spans during our recent historic climate change events, that started after mid November 2019.
    What do you mean by “climate change event”?

    The following falling tracked space junk contributed to over 250mm-300mm (over 10-12 inches) of rainfall in a short timespan, to parts of South East Queensland Australia in the mid evening and morning of the 17th and 18th of January 2020, that caused much flooding damage.
    Are you claiming space junk caused the flooding? What would be the mechanism? Do you think meteors are doing the same thing?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by VQkr View Post
    You think reentering space junk contributes to rainfall and heat waves?
    What do you make of the evidence presented?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    Australia was hit by no less than Skylab in 1979, but that created no chaotic weather. Did kill a rabbit, though.

    https://www.space.com/21092-skylab-s...is-photos.html
    Skylab didn't drop 374.78km in 45 minutes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Even if falling space junk could influence rainfall (which is not impossible, but is not well supported by the evidence presented) I don't see how it is relevant to global climate change. Are you suggesting that the rate at which stuff falls to earth correlates with global temperature change?
    I am suggesting that the people who build rocket Bodies that land themselves already know about these problems but they haven't bothered to tell the people that don't have rocket Bodies that land themselves.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    What do you mean by “climate change event”?
    Man made Climate Change does things like this to our climate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Are you claiming space junk caused the flooding? What would be the mechanism? Do you think meteors are doing the same thing?
    I have presented evidence of falling Rocket bodies that don't land themselves, fall very quickly and drop long distances, exactly around the times that extreme climate events have occurred in Australia over the past week and month. It is called Anthropogenic Climate Change, or man made Climate Change and I have made no mention of meteorites whatsoever in my OP.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Torsten View Post
    Roger's reminder of Skylab's fall in Australia makes an important point: For this to be considered scientific evidence, you need to include all the other space junk that has fallen to Earth over the years. Otherwise, it's just cherry picking. And, what is the proposed mechanism for weather alteration by this falling stuff?
    I have provided specific verifiable scientific evidence and have also made predictions based on this existing evidence by making projections that are already supported by the longer term rainfall models produced by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology scientists and physicists. It is called the scientific method and theories like this get proven when other scientists go out and search for other situations where up 3 different uncontrolled Rocket Bodies can be found dropping swiftly and sharply over the same geographic area around the same time as extreme Climate events.

    That's just how science is supposed to work.
    Last edited by LaurieAG; 2020-Jan-20 at 07:09 PM. Reason: spelling

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,810
    Interesting observation but in addition to making a prediction, it is useful to suggest a mechanism and at the moment I cannot see how falling rocket bodies could cause extreme weather events. Perhaps some suggestion of seeding by the many particles associated with the rapid heating of the falling objects.? I believe hailstones are seeded by tiny particles but then they have to be cycled in energetic thunderclouds to progressively build up into iceballs. So the basic meteorology is the increased energy of thunderclouds systems Fed by warmer waters and then that could be a triggering effect, is that what you think?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,946
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    I have presented evidence of falling Rocket bodies that don't land themselves, fall very quickly and drop long distances, exactly around the times that extreme climate events have occurred in Australia over the past week and month. It is called Anthropogenic Climate Change, or man made Climate Change and I have made no mention of meteorites whatsoever in my OP.
    You seem to be confusing weather with climate. You have presented insufficient evidence that these events affected the weather (as others have noted; just a few cherry-picked correlations).

    Climate change has taken place over many decades. It is very obviously not caused by a couple of recent rockets crashing to Earth.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,676
    What about the size and mass of the space debris? What about the size and shape of the reentering debris field? Exactly where in Australia did the debris impact? Why has the Australian gov't said nothing about this connection? When did this occur before, as you said other spacefaring nations knew of this connection? Are you aware Australia has also launched orbital spacecraft from Woomera and debris has fallen to Earth as a result?
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,030
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Man made Climate Change does things like this to our climate?



    I have presented evidence of falling Rocket bodies that don't land themselves, fall very quickly and drop long distances, exactly around the times that extreme climate events have occurred in Australia over the past week and month.
    [my bold] The rentry of any craft expends the same amount of energy, though the distribution of that energy is far less concentrated than during a crash event. It's reasonable to connect two dots and call it a line but there are hundreds of other dots that, when connected, do less than the results from a rain dance, perhaps.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,676
    What is the geophysical or meteorological means by which falling space debris causes flooding and brushfires. How does this happen? When exactly has it happened before, or was Australia 2019-2020 the first and only such event, within the last two months?

    Why does the altitude from which the space debris falls have anything to do with the flooding and brushfires? Are there altitudes from which falling rocket bodies cause no weather damage? Why did these rocket falls cause weather trouble, but all other rocket crashes ever have not? The U.S. dropped an entire Thor Able Star with payload on Cuba in late 1960, killed a cow and caused an international incident, but no weather problems resulted. Can you tell me why that is? The disastrous crash of the space shuttle Columbia produced an enormous debris field over Texas and bordering states. Why did this not produce wildfires and severe rainfall?

    Why did you specifically exclude meteors from your theory? It could be said that a metallic meteor falls from a "great height". Could it produce flooding and brushfires in Australia? Why or why not?

    What is the time window between which a rocket stage falls on or near Australia and the time of the outbreak of flooding and brushfires? Speaking of which, does it make no sense that a falling rocket would produce both rain and fire at the same time in local weather? Are you arguing that the climate of Australia has been permanently changed by the falling of three rocket bodies, or just for a little while?

    I am suggesting that the people who build rocket Bodies that land themselves already know about these problems but they haven't bothered to tell the people that don't have rocket Bodies that land themselves.
    How is it possible that since the beginnings of large rocketry experiments in the 1940s, no one has ever seen or reported evidence before now that falling space debris produces extreme weather? Would not the Australian government know of this, given its very long record of supporting the American and United Kingdom's space programs?

    I have presented evidence of falling Rocket bodies that don't land themselves, fall very quickly and drop long distances, exactly around the times that extreme climate events have occurred in Australia over the past week and month....

    ...I have provided specific verifiable scientific evidence and have also made predictions based on this existing evidence by making projections that are already supported by the longer term rainfall models produced by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology scientists and physicists. It is called the scientific method and theories like this get proven when other scientists go out and search for other situations where up 3 different uncontrolled Rocket Bodies can be found dropping swiftly and sharply over the same geographic area around the same time as extreme Climate events.

    That's just how science is supposed to work.
    There is nothing scientific about these allegations. The events are coincidental, and the interpretation is grossly misleading. One could just as well argue that last season's Australian Rules Football scores caused the rainfall and fires, if you don't offer any real connection between these events. The Cats lost, that must have done it! No. Just because A happens and then B happens doesn't mean anything connects them without real evidence to show how it happened.

    I look forward to your response. Thank you.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    What do you make of the evidence presented?
    Was that a yes or a no?

    I think you are confused about the weather vs. climate. And orbital dynamics. And correlation vs causality.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Interesting observation but in addition to making a prediction, it is useful to suggest a mechanism and at the moment I cannot see how falling rocket bodies could cause extreme weather events. Perhaps some suggestion of seeding by the many particles associated with the rapid heating of the falling objects.? I believe hailstones are seeded by tiny particles but then they have to be cycled in energetic thunderclouds to progressively build up into iceballs. So the basic meteorology is the increased energy of thunderclouds systems Fed by warmer waters and then that could be a triggering effect, is that what you think?
    George, Roger E. Moore and Strange, please read my responses below to profloater's question as they may answer some of yours. Also Roger, please read my OP again, preferrably the whole lot but especially the title that says Anthrtopogenic or MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, and let me get some sleep.

    A meteorite is a solid piece of debris from an object, such as a comet, asteroid, or meteoroid, that originated in outer space and survived its passage through the atmosphere to reach the surface of a planet or moon.
    If you look at the distances that all of these these Rocket Bodies fell, within hours of each other, and the time they took to fall these distances you will see that the forces generated are very great when compared to something like Tiangong 1 which floated down consistently like a glider or a controlled rocket body landing itself on a safe pontoon out in the ocean where nobody or much environment would be affected if it had an accident as it came down.

    The paths of the first 2 objects I have identified were extremely elongated, to say the least, so they should be expected to be generate more energy and heat as they punch through the thicker atmosphere of their low passes when compared with their higher passes in a much thinner atmosphere, even when they were traveling faster. The material the rocket nozzles are made of are also very dense metal compared with the other parts of the rocket body so these objects can also be expected to hang around for quite a while (2 months at least with these 3) and cool down and heat up again (Canadian Blizzards dragged down from the arctic anyone? I haven't really looked at the other 2/3 of their orbits) before they completely burn up or re-enter.


    There has also been knowledge about the impacts of these low pass/high pass elongated orbits for at least 20 years or so with regards to rogue communications satellites so it's not exactly new science but a look at the existing science with respect to how these things behave with specific regards to their impact on the climate in the upper atmosphere. The BOM calls this space weather and they probably incorporate it into their own models in some way or another. When a relatively modern communications satellite etc starts to run out of the propellant it uses to to maneuver itself and maintain it's position with respect to the other satellites in its network the operators back then would use the remaining propellant to maneuver it into a 'safe' orbit so that it wouldn't cause any harm because it couldn't be controlled any more. Unfortunately, even if a 'safe' satellite park is found the moon can 'wonk' it out of its safe orbit and send it into an elliptical orbit that has a high and low pass, with the low passes in the same area, just like the evidence I have presented with regards to these 3 Rocket Bodies and their respective orbits in the OP.

    The articles I read about these elongated orbits around 15 years ago said they generate much heat mainly due to the change in the atmospheric density and the relatively velocity they were traveling at so the science is very similar to a typical Keplarian orbit due but slightly different. The main difference is that when something like a dense rocket body goes down to 1/4 of it's high orbit during it's low orbit (i.e. dropping from an altitude of 500km down 374.78km to 125.41km in half its circuit time and 1/3rd of its total orbit distance) it, and its 2 other companions, generate a huge amount of friction and the heat is released into the atmosphere above a relatively small area as they pass through and that tends to heat up and move any atmosphere below it. And I can assure you that it was also very steamy down here and no hail was present while it rained over one inch of rain per hour last Friday night/Saturday morning and our three metallic buddies were passing overhead.

    It would be good if an actual Meteorological Climate scientist could develop a simple algorithm to detect a few of these unseemly celestial gatherings out of their historic data sets and see if they could find if other similar weather anomalies were observed in the area's below them at the times they gathered. If they do find them they can then use that as a method to project future events in similar circumstances and nut out the processes behind these extreme weather events. These extreme events don't really seem to be related to single events from my evidence but they do seem related to when you have three of them regularly gathering on their low passes over one country or region for a week or more as shown by the details I have presented.

    That's about all I can say at the moment profloater as it's 6:50am AEST (or 7:50am AEDT) here in South East Queensland and I have spent the entire night writing a 3 page OP and responding multiple times to the same basic questions so I really need to get some sleep or I'll be up all day. I have responded to George, Roger E. Moore and Strange above while I was writing this response. Good night everybody.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,946
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    I have responded to George, Roger E. Moore and Strange above while I was writing this response. Good night everybody.
    That rather incoherent essay totally failed to answer any of the questions.

    You need to show more than just a correlation between three events and the weather at the time. You need to also show that it holds for other similar events, and that similar weather did not occur without these events.

    You also need to show that this is relevant to climate change, not just short term weather.

    There may be correlation between the number of rockets that fall to earth and climate change. But there is also a correlation between cell phone use and climate change. Or between falling fertility rates in the developed world and climate change. But these are not cause and effect; they are all just results of increasing industrialisation and so show some correlation.
    Last edited by Strange; 2020-Jan-20 at 09:22 PM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    Skylab didn't drop 374.78km in 45 minutes.
    Great. You have a mass and a velocity. Now calculate the kinetic energy. Compare that number to the kinetic energy in a hurricane. Or the entire atmosphere of earth. Revert with the results of your calculations. Include your workings.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,676
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    George, Roger E. Moore and Strange, please read my responses below to profloater's question as they may answer some of yours. Also Roger, please read my OP again, preferrably the whole lot but especially the title that says Anthrtopogenic or MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, and let me get some sleep.
    Did that three times. Still no change in my questions or comments. However, here are more questions and comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    There has also been knowledge about the impacts of these low pass/high pass elongated orbits for at least 20 years or so with regards to rogue communications satellites so it's not exactly new science but a look at the existing science with respect to how these things behave with specific regards to their impact on the climate in the upper atmosphere. The BOM calls this space weather and they probably incorporate it into their own models in some way or another.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/data/...ce-weather.pdf
    From BOM itself:

    What is Space Weather?
    Space Weather broadly describes the impact of solar activity on technological systems and human well-being here on earth. Dynamic variations on the surface of the sun can release large amounts of energy in various forms including electromagnetic radiation, charged particles and eruptions of huge clouds of ionised gas. These phenomena can significantly affect the earth’s upper atmosphere and surrounding space environment with impacts felt all the way down to technological systems on the ground.
    This has nothing to do with falling satellites. You were wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    What about the size and mass of the space debris? What about the size and shape of the reentering debris field? Exactly where in Australia did the debris impact? Why has the Australian gov't said nothing about this connection? When did this occur before, as you said other spacefaring nations knew of this connection? Are you aware Australia has also launched orbital spacecraft from Woomera and debris has fallen to Earth as a result?
    Please answer this part at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    The articles I read about these elongated orbits around 15 years ago said they generate much heat mainly due to the change in the atmospheric density and the relatively velocity they were traveling at so the science is very similar to a typical Keplarian orbit due but slightly different. The main difference is that when something like a dense rocket body goes down to 1/4 of it's high orbit during it's low orbit (i.e. dropping from an altitude of 500km down 374.78km to 125.41km in half its circuit time and 1/3rd of its total orbit distance) it, and its 2 other companions, generate a huge amount of friction and the heat is released into the atmosphere above a relatively small area as they pass through and that tends to heat up and move any atmosphere below it. And I can assure you that it was also very steamy down here and no hail was present while it rained over one inch of rain per hour last Friday night/Saturday morning and our three metallic buddies were passing overhead.
    I see no math to prove this. I see generalities but no evidence/proof, and I cannot figure out what the last sentence has to do with anything. You must prove--with math, not hand-waving--that the heat generated by the bodies many kilometers above you at different times made things very steamy there where you are.

    And why hasn't the Australian scientific community or government said anything about this.

    I mean, if you want to believe this, fine, go ahead, but I still think the fact that the Geelong Cats lost at AFL last season was what did it. I have no proof, but neither do you.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13,030
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    If you look at the distances that all of these these Rocket Bodies fell, within hours of each other, and the time they took to fall these distances you will see that the forces generated are very great when compared to something like Tiangong 1 which floated down consistently like a glider or a controlled rocket body landing itself on a safe pontoon out in the ocean where nobody or much environment would be affected if it had an accident as it came down.
    This is simple PE (potential energy) converting to KE (kinetic energy), which is usually in the form of heat for falling objects. Yes, the faster that happens the faster that energy is released, but the total is the same for any incoming object if at the same speed.

    The paths of the first 2 objects I have identified were extremely elongated, to say the least, so they should be expected to be generate more energy and heat as they punch through the thicker atmosphere of their low passes when compared with their higher passes in a much thinner atmosphere, even when they were traveling faster.
    Out atmosphere diminishes to where space begins, which is roughly 100 km, IIRC. Yet aren't your objects above the atmosphere for the most part?

    The material the rocket nozzles are made of are also very dense metal compared with the other parts of the rocket body so these objects can also be expected to hang around for quite a while (2 months at least with these 3) and cool down and heat up again (Canadian Blizzards dragged down from the arctic anyone? I haven't really looked at the other 2/3 of their orbits) before they completely burn up or re-enter.
    Having greater mass will create more heat (KE = mv2/2) as they fall, but only in a linear way. The amount of heat generated to get them into space no doubt exceeds the amount expended on their return, so shouldn't their launch produce rain as well, if I have your supposition correct?

    The articles I read about these elongated orbits around 15 years ago said they generate much heat mainly due to the change in the atmospheric density and the relatively velocity they were traveling at so the science is very similar to a typical Keplarian orbit due but slightly different. The main difference is that when something like a dense rocket body goes down to 1/4 of it's high orbit during it's low orbit (i.e. dropping from an altitude of 500km down 374.78km to 125.41km in half its circuit time and 1/3rd of its total orbit distance) it, and its 2 other companions, generate a huge amount of friction and the heat is released into the atmosphere above a relatively small area as they pass through and that tends to heat up and move any atmosphere below it.
    If they were to generate a lot of heat by friction with the atmosphere, then they would fall fast, but they wouldn't generate close to the heat from say a Space Shuttle normal re-entry. Isn't this simply PE converting to KE from the PE originally given the satellite when launched? Do you see it gaining energy in some powerful way that would somehow generate much greater heat when encountering the atmosphere?

    And I can assure you that it was also very steamy down here and no hail was present while it rained over one inch of rain per hour last Friday night/Saturday morning and our three metallic buddies were passing overhead.
    But aren't those space altitudes and not very thin atmosphere altitudes?

    That's about all I can say at the moment profloater as it's 6:50am AEST (or 7:50am AEDT) here in South East Queensland and I have spent the entire night writing a 3 page OP and responding multiple times to the same basic questions so I really need to get some sleep or I'll be up all day. I have responded to George, Roger E. Moore and Strange above while I was writing this response. Good night everybody.
    Please don't feel rushed to respond. I might not back till tomorrow.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,676
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    If you look at the distances that all of these these Rocket Bodies fell, within hours of each other, and the time they took to fall these distances you will see that the forces generated are very great when compared to something like Tiangong 1 which floated down consistently like a glider or a controlled rocket body landing itself on a safe pontoon out in the ocean where nobody or much environment would be affected if it had an accident as it came down.
    I do not believe you even looked this up. Here:

    https://www.space.com/40101-china-sp...1-crashes.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1#Re-entry

    Tiangong 1, or what was left of it, crashed into the south Pacific Ocean after a fiery reentry. It was nowhere near Australia. It did not "[float] down consistently like a glider or a controlled rocket body landing itself on a safe pontoon out in the ocean." You must be confusing the Chinese space station with something else. I strongly urge you to check your sources and avoid mistakes like this, which completely undermine your entire argument by implying you are either making things up or are very confused about the facts.

    It should be added that controlled rocket landings are always done when the weather is GOOD. The rocket landing does not cause good weather. The launch and touchdown are ALWAYS done in good weather, or else you cannot get your rocket back in one piece.

    NOTE: If you don't mention the (exact or even reasonably approximate) mass and size of the reentering vehicles, no heat physics and math can be done to prove your point.
    Last edited by Roger E. Moore; 2020-Jan-20 at 09:46 PM.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger E. Moore View Post
    It should be added that controlled rocket landings are always done when the weather is GOOD. The rocket landing does not cause good weather. The launch and touchdown are ALWAYS done in good weather, or else you cannot get your rocket back in one piece.
    Another win for "correlation is not causation."

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    George, Roger E. Moore and Strange, please read my responses below to profloater's question as they may answer some of yours. Also Roger, please read my OP again, preferrably the whole lot but especially the title that says Anthrtopogenic or MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE, and let me get some sleep.
    I find your cherry-picked examples unsupportive of your thesis. They fail to do even as well as the famous pirates-global warming data: https://pastafarians.org.au/pastafar...lobal-warming/

    If forced to choose between only these two, I’d readily choose pirates.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    3,676
    Wait a minute, hold the bus -- some of these spacecraft have not even reentered yet!

    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    (2) CZ-3B R/C - PRC Rocket Body - Peoples Republic of China - Launched on November 18th 2019 from Xichang Space Centre CHINA- Projected Re-entry on January 22nd 2020 at 1:20am AEST +/- 95 minutes
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    (3) PSLB R/C - ISRO Rocket Body - INDIA - Launched on April 1st????? 2019 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharicota INDIA - Projected Re-entry on January 24 at 01:00am AEST 2020 +/- 95 minutes
    Well done! You fooled us all. Well done. Here I wasted all this time refuting evidence that was wrong to begin with! Hats off to you on your little trick.

    NEVER add events that haven't happened to your evidence.
    Last edited by Roger E. Moore; 2020-Jan-20 at 11:43 PM.
    Do good work. —Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    The following details are the results of the tracking of 3 discarded aerospace Rocket Bodies ...
    Seems an ATM idea that global warming is caused by the tiny heating of the atmosphere by discarded rockets burning up in the atmosphere. So a two part formal question for you, LaurieAG.
    What is the total energy of global warming in a year?
    What is the total energy of the rockets burning up in a year?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,906
    A Wiki article reports an estimated 15,000 tons per year of meteoroids entering the atmosphere. Do re-entering satellites and rocket bodies come anywhere close to that? I know Wiki is not the last word, but they are usually pretty good on topics like this.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •