Scientific evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global warming revisited

[Van Rijn]

Man made Climate Change does things like this to our climate?

That is still unclear to me. By “climate change event” do you mean weather events that are suspected to be affected by climate change (like the recent Australian issues)? Do you mean events (like your claims about space junk reentry) that you believe would cause climate change? Something else?

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.

But why haven’t you considered meteors? Off hand, meteors entering the atmosphere would seem to be very similar to spacecraft reentry, with much more total mass entering on a daily basis, in many cases much more energetic events too. What is so special about man-made space junk reentry?

It seems to me that you would need to consider possible mechanisms and how (or if) they could cause or dramatically affect large scale weather events, and then consider whether such mechanisms would apply to all objects entering the atmosphere or somehow be unique to space junk reentry before you could exclude meteors.

My strong suspicion is that if you do consider meteors, space junk entry would be lost in the noise of total events.

[Roger E. Moore]

Found this extremely interesting piece online (from Australia) that you might wish to consider.

http://www.australasianscience.com.a...junk-crashing-

"Halfway between New Zealand and South America in the Pacific Ocean is one of the most un-inhabited places on the Earth. This is the ideal location to have large pieces come back down, as the risk to lifeforms is minimal.

"While most of these objects will break up into smaller bits, choosing a remote location then further minimises the risk of these bits.

"In this part of an ocean there are literally hundreds of parts of automated space vehicles, rocket boosters, and even the Russian Space Station Mir, which splashed down east of Fiji in March 2001.

"When you look at maps of satellite and space junk re-entry, the majority go straight over Australia and New Zealand. That is because re-entry starts roughly between 80km and 100km above the ground, takes around 15 to 20 minutes, and creates debris footprints hundreds-to-thousands of kilometers wide.

"Therefore in order to hit the target of the southern Pacific Ocean, it must start over Australia and New Zealand."

[Eclogite]

My strong suspicion is that if you do consider meteors, space junk entry would be lost in the noise of total events.

This was my thinking also, but I tried out my Devil's Advocate hat, just for the exercise.

How do meteors differ from space junk in terms of potential impact?

1. Total mass: Overwhelmingly slanted to meteorites, thus effect of space junk should be close to zero.
2. Velocity (and thus total energy dissipated): Substantially greater for meteorites, thus effect of space junk likely to be insignificant.
3. Composition: Space junk varied, primarily metallic with high concentrations of some elements. Effects undetermined.

If LaurieAG wishes to argue for an influence of space junk the mechanism would probably have to be found with respect to composition. Nothing feasible leaps out at me.

[LaurieAG]

First things first, here is a BOM image of the storms coming in from the northwest at 4:24pm and 4:30pm so you can see how quickly they build up AEST today as per my first projection. Our Mt Stapylton radar is a Dual Doppler system so it can tell the difference between rain and hail etc which comes in as black. When you see the big black storms rolling in you get your cars under cover very quickly.

[LaurieAG]

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.

My first prediction based on the low point of these Rocket Body orbits being overhead has worked out correctly. You obviously haven't bothered to read the OP as if you did you would know that the latest news is the second one comes down in 5 hours and 15 mins from now per Satview.org and the third comes down on Thursday. Please give me the common courtesy of actually reading the OP and looking at the attached images in it before you comment further.

http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=41912U

I obviously don't have the larger computers and databases that our own BOM scientists have access to so I have hilighted patterns that can be explored by people who do have access to the data and equipment necessary. How can you make those comments if you have never searched for occurrences of 3 Rocket Bodies converging at the low points of their eliptical orbits over the same location for a week. Another coincidence is that the past weeks 7 day rainfall totals on the cable weather report this afternoon shows a large red smudge over South East Queensland while the rest of Australia has had relatively little rain in comparison.

I have also held Applied Science qualifications for around 28 years and most of my work has been related to communicating with both relatively non technical people and very technical people at an equal level so I always strive to seek a happy medium.

[LaurieAG]

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?

Roger, please give me the common courtesy of reading the OP and looking at the images.

Per my response to Strange, 2 of these Rocket Bodies are yet to come down and I have hilighted the areas where their low points coincide in small geographical area's within small time spans.

BTW, our BOM published a PDF in 1998 that is at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on Orbital decay. The first link is to that page and the second link is to the BOM PDF. Please read the 11 page PDF thoroughly and you will also learn about space weather, the atmospheric models used, drag and see how satellite orbits can be simulated among many other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educa...lculations.pdf

If you actually read down to the bottom you will see that they reference Newtons "Principia" and say the following.

This classic text is not only the basis of our everyday fundamental physical dynamics but it also appears to
be the first text to discuss the effect of atmospheric drag on Earth satellite orbits.]

This is public information that has been freely available for over 20 years now so I suggest that you make a genuine effort to understand the basic scientific concepts involved before you make any further comments in this thread.

[LaurieAG]

Was that a yes or a no?

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

So you don't have any real scientific comments to make about the evidence presented? Please read my previous post.

[LaurieAG]

Did that three times. Still no change in my questions or comments. However, here are more questions and comments.
http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/data/...ce-weather.pdf
From BOM itself:

This has nothing to do with falling satellites. You were wrong.

Please answer this part at least.

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.

If you read the BOM PDF from 1998 on "Satellite Orbital Decay Calculations" that I have posted in my previous response you will see that most of your concerns are covered in the 11 pages and they are related to Orbital Decay and the Calculations involved.

You could also look at the images in the OP that actually have the altitude figures and all of the data I quote in the body of my OP. The Satellite models that Satview and even the US STRATCOM use are proprietary systems so I cannot give you any more than the basics of the maths behind how these types of systems work without breaching intellectual property laws so please satisfy yourself with the publicly available details that I have presented in this thread as they are behind everything in my OP and the images posted.

As I said in the OP and my previous responses, these are direct examples of the phenomena and pointers for other fellow professionals who have access to the systems and data necessary to investigate these issues further.

[LaurieAG]

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.

While I may have the necessary professional qualifications to write satellite tracking programs and also have the skills required to interpret the data resulting from running these programs and identifying and analysing interesting data patterns that are produced by these programs for further bulk analysis that is not the purpose of this OP.

That is why I have excluded all of the 'under the bonnet' calculations and have provided links to their technical details for people who are interested and have only referred to the specific patterns that I have identified in the OP by presenting a text summary of the data used in the body of the OP and the images with the technical information attached if you want to verify what I have stated is true.

A note to those following this thread.

This must be really hard to read for people who don't have the necessary qualifications to write this software but who want to understand the basic principles involved in what I have put in my OP. I must sincerely apologise to those people who have been following this thread and have actually bothered to look at the images and have verified that the things I state in my OP are true because I had no intention of dragging you into a technical swamp of quicksand.

I will start reporting the posts of people who continually ignore the contents of my OP as presented and just want to drag everything into this technical swamp in future so that the people who would genuinely like to understand what I am saying can learn for themselves by seeing and doing what I have done. It's just not fair to bog you down with mistrust issues over the competency of the scientists and IT professionals who have developed the tracking software used when this has absolutely nothing to do with the concepts I have presented. I feel you should have confidence in the Satview software and the results presented in the OP due to their long term involvement and partnership with the US Strategic Command and the confidence they obviously have between each other.

As an IT professional with over 30 years of experience, an Applied Computer Scientist if you like, I find this type of unprofessional behaviour childish, very unprofessional and just a crude trollish form of ad hominism.

[LaurieAG]

Please don't feel rushed to respond. I might not back till tomorrow.

I'll just respond now so your post doesn't get lost.

My previous responses today refer to the technical details behind Satellite Tracking Calculations, basic models and the software developed to save everybody the trouble of having to go through all of this when it isn't really necessary.

I will attach the BOM storm warning image below that was issued at 6:16pm AEST tonight to so you can verify for yourself that the direction of the storms follow the projected paths of the falling Rocket Boosters contained in my OP images for the 21st.



Satview has CZ-3B R/B coming down in 3hours 54 minutes as I post so it will probably be down before you get back.

http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=41912U

[Van Rijn]

I will attach the BOM storm warning image below that was issued at 6:16pm AEST tonight to so you can verify for yourself that the direction of the storms follow the projected paths of the falling Rocket Boosters contained in my OP images for the 21st.

[snip]

Satview has CZ-3B R/B coming down in 3hours 54 minutes as I post so it will probably be down before you get back.

Are you suggesting that objects that have yet to reenter are affecting the wind patterns of a continent? If so, what mechanism are you proposing for this? If you are unfamiliar, while in orbit, the energy transfer to the near vacuum is extremely small (otherwise, it wouldn’t be in orbit) and spread over the entire orbital track. The only significant energy deposit is during final reentry as the object reaches dense atmosphere. This is also the only time the energy deposit would be reasonably localized. Even then, the amount of energy deposited is minuscule compared to the heat content of the atmosphere, and a significant portion of it will just radiate back into space anyway.

[LaurieAG]

Wait a minute, hold the bus -- some of these spacecraft have not even reentered yet!

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.

Roger, that's why I asked you to do me the common courtesy of actually going to the trouble of reading what I have posted in my OP multiple times, because it's obvious that you have only done so now.

That's not a trick in anyway on my behalf and I am confident enough to make projections that are backed up by scientific evidence and have been proven accurate already due to my long term professional experience with applied science.

Please do me a further courtesy of reading all of my responses to previous posts before this one so that the people who are following this thread don't get bogged down in multiple responses to the same things that they don't really need to know about anyway. If they really want to know more then they can follow the links I have posted in their own time and ask further questions in science forums like Cosmoquest.

Incidentally, here's a link to a thread I created about Tiangong 1's re-entry. I projected an accurate re-entry time based on very simple principles, to within half an hour, around 1 month before it came down and posted this thread in the Education section of this forum below.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...Class-vehicles

[LaurieAG]

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?

Please refer to my OP and refer to what I have written it.

You can also do me the common courtesy of reading all of my previous responses to all the other questions put to me before responding to this reply, before you reply to this post.

[LaurieAG]

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.

If they were of similar sizes and compositions and all came together over the same geographical areas multiple times in short time periods I wouldn't be surprised but that isn't what I refer to in my OP.

Please read to all my previous responses to other questions and if you have any questions that are relevant to my OP then feel free to respond accordingly.

[LaurieAG]

My strong suspicion is that if you do consider meteors, space junk entry would be lost in the noise of total events.

Please read all my previous responses to all the other questions before you respond to this reply and if you have any questions that are actually relevant to my OP then feel free to respond accordingly.

[LaurieAG]

This was my thinking also, but I tried out my Devil's Advocate hat, just for the exercise.

How do meteors differ from space junk in terms of potential impact?

1. Total mass: Overwhelmingly slanted to meteorites, thus effect of space junk should be close to zero.
2. Velocity (and thus total energy dissipated): Substantially greater for meteorites, thus effect of space junk likely to be insignificant.
3. Composition: Space junk varied, primarily metallic with high concentrations of some elements. Effects undetermined.

If LaurieAG wishes to argue for an influence of space junk the mechanism would probably have to be found with respect to composition. Nothing feasible leaps out at me.

Please read all of my previous responses to all the other questions before you respond to this reply and if you have any questions that are actually relevant to my OP then feel free to respond accordingly.

[LaurieAG]

Found this extremely interesting piece online (from Australia) that you might wish to consider.

http://www.australasianscience.com.a...junk-crashing-

"Halfway between New Zealand and South America in the Pacific Ocean is one of the most un-inhabited places on the Earth. This is the ideal location to have large pieces come back down, as the risk to lifeforms is minimal.

"While most of these objects will break up into smaller bits, choosing a remote location then further minimises the risk of these bits.

"In this part of an ocean there are literally hundreds of parts of automated space vehicles, rocket boosters, and even the Russian Space Station Mir, which splashed down east of Fiji in March 2001.

"When you look at maps of satellite and space junk re-entry, the majority go straight over Australia and New Zealand. That is because re-entry starts roughly between 80km and 100km above the ground, takes around 15 to 20 minutes, and creates debris footprints hundreds-to-thousands of kilometers wide.

"Therefore in order to hit the target of the southern Pacific Ocean, it must start over Australia and New Zealand."

If you want to experience the impacts of the uncontrolled re-entry of rocket booster space junk you should have lived here when the US Apollo space program dumped the majority of it's stage 3 Rocket Boosters in the western Pacific ocean. As they came in over Australia they would create cyclones that followed natural paths that were more like a staggering drunks than some of the more vicious and powerful cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons or even Fuji Wari's that came in like the wicked witch of the west in the land of OZ.

So from the mid 60's to the mid 70's we had so many cyclones come down near my neck of the woods on the east coast of the middle of Australia 2 hours drive down to it's most easterly point that we had cyclone surfing banks that developed 400 meters off our coastline that only really pumped when the cyclone swells came in. Those sand banks deteriorated pretty quickly because after the mid 70's we didn't get any more cyclones down here for 15 years or so when a space shuttle blew up and we had the old staggering drunk that came down here and wobbled around a bit before it came over the coast and turned into a rain depression just like all of the others, expecially the one in 1969 that dropped 18 inches of rain in 24 hours and flooded us out.

Since I lived through this as a child, who was also fascinated with the Apollo Space Program, it became relatively easy to determine if a weather event was natural/uncontrolled or unnatural and controlled because the man made controlled ones usually went in relatively straight lines compared to their wandering drunk uncontrolled compatriots.

While we don't get that many cyclones anymore we started to get things called eastern lows that were 'dry' cyclones with their typical tidal storm surges that wreaked havoc, just like the cyclones, whenever they coincided with king/spring tides. It was very concerning to see the water come up out of the drains and flood our streets when we only had strong wind warnings from these developing lows that would pick up any rain they came across and dash it against the coast and no real cyclonic drenchings. Not more than 25 year ago you could read New Scientist articles about how the Brazilian scientists had no real prior knowledge or explanations for these same types of dry low phenomena off the coast of South America on the direct opposite side of the planet to us, unless you relate it to the paths of falling objects.

The word meteorology has an interesting history. Meteorology is the study of the atmosphere and its phenomena. “ology” means the study of. ... The meaning used in meteorology refers to the Greek word “meteora” which means atmospheric phenomena and things in the sky and heavens.

You probably think that all of this is heresy but you cannot really comment until you have lived most of your lifetime in a region subject to these unusual weather patterns. It's easy to see that the world has at least 4 main major 'natural' weather system spawning points that are spaced above and below the equator on different sides of the world when you think about it. The US one is the area where the Caribbean cyclones spawn and it's partner is where the eastern lows spawn further down. During the 60/70s the spawn point was in the coral sea east of Torres Straight between PNG and Australia but our major 'dry' east coast systems now spawn in the area equivalent to the Brazilian spawn points. Now our cyclones usually spawn off our western shores between Timor and Australia with their matching northern hemisphere spawn points being the spawn points for Hurricanes and Typhoons. That doesn't mean that we haven't had cyclones that spawn off Cape York, run west towards Timor and then go right down to the bottom of Western Australia, or even run straight down our Eastern Dividing Range and go in a straight line past Tasmania when rockets fail and come down big time as they have a couple of times in the past 10 years, but there must be some good reasons for their peculiar, almost 'driven' behavior which could be explained by dropping space junk paths above them. Did you ever hit and old bike tire with a stick to keep it running when you were a child?

I still have much sleep to catch up with and CZ-3B's reentry has been reset back to 5 hours and 20 minutes from now, early tomorrow morning, so it will be hanging around for a bit longer. I'll leave this as my final response for today.

http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=41912U

[Strange]

My first prediction based on the low point of these Rocket Body orbits being overhead has worked out correctly. You obviously haven't bothered to read the OP as if you did you would know that the latest news is the second one comes down in 5 hours and 15 mins from now per Satview.org and the third comes down on Thursday. Please give me the common courtesy of actually reading the OP and looking at the attached images in it before you comment further.

http://www.satview.org/?sat_id=41912U

I obviously don't have the larger computers and databases that our own BOM scientists have access to so I have hilighted patterns that can be explored by people who do have access to the data and equipment necessary. How can you make those comments if you have never searched for occurrences of 3 Rocket Bodies converging at the low points of their eliptical orbits over the same location for a week. Another coincidence is that the past weeks 7 day rainfall totals on the cable weather report this afternoon shows a large red smudge over South East Queensland while the rest of Australia has had relatively little rain in comparison.

I have also held Applied Science qualifications for around 28 years and most of my work has been related to communicating with both relatively non technical people and very technical people at an equal level so I always strive to seek a happy medium.

And, again, none of this has any connection to climate change.

You are talking about weather patterns, not climate. (I doubt there is any effect on the weather either, for reasons others have explained.)

[Strange]

So you don't have any real scientific comments to make about the evidence presented? Please read my previous post.

If you don't like the fact that people keep pointing out that you don't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather" maybe you should (a) admit it is true and (b) ask a moderator to change the title of the thread.

[Eclogite]

If you don't like the fact that people keep pointing out that you don't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather" maybe you should (a) admit it is true and (b) ask a moderator to change the title of the thread.

The best distinction between the two, for me, was provided by a geography teacher more than half a century ago. "The United Kingdom has a very pleasant climate. It is only it's weather that is so awful."

[Strange]

Please refer to my OP and refer to what I have written it.

You can also do me the common courtesy of reading all of my previous responses to all the other questions put to me before responding to this reply, before you reply to this post.

OK. I have gone back and re-read you 3 opening posts. And I have read all the questions and your responses in the thread. That has not changed anything.

1. You are talking about weather not climate change.

2. You have cited three coincidences between falling space junk and weather.

- You have not shown that this is a consistent pattern for all (or a significant proportion of) such falling rockets
- You have not shown that these weather events do not occur in the absence of such falls
- You have not analysed the energy involved in these rockets falling to Earth and compared it to the energy in the atmosphere, or involved in significant weather events
- You have not explained why falling space junk is different from the (much larger) mass-energy of other material that falls to Earth
- You have not provided any mechanism for how these could affect the weather (correlation, even if there were any, is not causation)
- You have shown absolutely no connection to the many decades of climate change.

(And please do not respond by saying "read the OP" or "read my other responses" because you do not address any of these points anywhere as far as I can see.)

[Van Rijn]

2. You have cited three coincidences between falling space junk and weather.

To clarify, one reentry near Australia around the time of a severe weather event, and two pieces of space junk still in orbit. So really, it is a coincidence between a single piece of falling space junk and weather.

Though I am waiting for clarification it looks like LaurieAG may also be suggesting even space junk in orbit somehow affects weather. Of course, that would seem even more implausible than reentry. I would be fascinated to hear what possible mechanism could be responsible. Sympathetic magic, perhaps?

[profloater]

I have to agree with the others hear that firstly this is Extreme weather, not climate change, but I do feel that global warming is correlated with more frequent extreme weather. The increased energy due to warmer waters is expected to increase the severity of thunderstorms with associated rainfall on land and that energy is orders of magnitude greater than the kinetic energy of falling objects. The extreme heat that Australia has experienced with the worsened bushfires, would also be expected to cause thunderstorms.Having said that, that does remain the interesting phenomena of the seeding of water droplets in the upper atmosphere where even bacteria floated up on air currents have been cited as possible seeds for rain, which often starts as ice, so the possibility of seeding supersaturated atmosphere does remain an intriguing possibility.

[Van Rijn]

Please read all my previous responses to all the other questions before you respond to this reply and if you have any questions that are actually relevant to my OP then feel free to respond accordingly.

I have read your OP and all your previous responses, and my questions have always been in regards to your claims and statements in you OP and later posts. If I ask for a clarification, it is because you said something that is unclear. Sometimes I will also ask you to verify what I think you meant. I like to do that rather than just assume and put words in your mouth.

I asked what you meant by “climate change event” and your response was unclear. I asked for further clarification which you have not provided. That’s fine, I am not interested enough to press it. I will just assume you meant “weather event” but had gotten the terms confused.

I have also asked you why you haven’t considered meteors in your hypothesis. Your short, unclear, response to Hornblower did not answer my question. Meteor entries are ubiquitous, and would seem very similar to space junk reentry, yet I am not aware of anyone that has noticed a correlation between meteors and weather, or a disruption of weather forecasts due to even significant meteors.

Ultimately, meteors would seem to argue against your hypothesis. If you have a careful detailed argument, with evidence, for why they don’t, I would like to see it.

[tusenfem]

I will start reporting the posts of people who continually ignore the contents of my OP as presented and just want to drag everything into this technical swamp in future so that the people who would genuinely like to understand what I am saying can learn for themselves by seeing and doing what I have done.

Please do not go down this path.

[Van Rijn]

Going back to the OP

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.

[snip]


(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

Am I understanding correctly that the flooding you claim was somehow caused by space junk started on the 17th and the reentry was on the 18th at 5:00am? Then even in this instance, wasn’t it still in orbit when the flooding began? So out of three examples, you have no correlation?

With poor science or pseudoscience claims it is common to see events placed together when there is no good reason to assume cause and effect. There have been a number of severe weather events in Australia. Didn’t you just look for one that happened near the time of reentry?

Also, was this weather event completely unpredicted in weather forecasts?

It would be more interesting if a reentry location was right on top of the starting location of an unpredicted weather event that starts immediately or very soon after the reentry. After multiple examples of that, you could start having an interesting argument.

[Jim]

… I will start reporting the posts of people who continually ignore the contents of my OP as presented and just want to drag everything into this technical swamp …

You are entitled - in fact, encouraged - to Report problematic posts. However, you must realize that posing questions - even "technically swampy" ones - is a part of ATM's purpose. You need to address relevant questions in a timely manner. If you feel the question is not relevant to your OP, say so and ask for clarification/explanation.

As an IT professional with over 30 years of experience, an Applied Computer Scientist if you like, I find this type of unprofessional behaviour childish, very unprofessional and just a crude trollish form of ad hominism ...

Then Report it. Don't bring it up in-thread.

This must be really hard to read for people who don't have the necessary qualifications to write this software ...

You do recognize the irony that this is a bit "trollish?"

[Van Rijn]

It's just not fair to bog you down with mistrust issues over the competency of the scientists and IT professionals who have developed the tracking software used when this has absolutely nothing to do with the concepts I have presented. I feel you should have confidence in the Satview software and the results presented in the OP due to their long term involvement and partnership with the US Strategic Command and the confidence they obviously have between each other.

I did a search and up to now, you have been the only poster that has mentioned ”Satview” in thread. Nor have I seen anyone argue about the competency of its developers. Your ATM claims are the issue here, not the software you are using. Perhaps you should read our posts.

[Van Rijn]

Going back to one more post before I take a break.

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.

Okay, it looks like you have a significant misunderstanding here. The international official start of space (Karman line) is 100km. That is a near vacuum. At 125km drag is significantly greater for a satellite than a few hundred km, but heating is minimal, and at that it is spread over a large distance as the spacecraft moves in its orbit. It only becomes significant on final entry. And as I mentioned before, much of that will be radiated out to space.

It is when it drops below 100km that the heating will really get started, and gets really hot around 50 km. But even then the amount of energy is insignificant compared to the heat content of the atmosphere. It’s a drop in the ocean.

[VQkr]

So you don't have any real scientific comments to make about the evidence presented? Please read my previous post.

Correlation vs causality is a scientific comment. For your hypothesis to be taken seriously, you would need to use accurate language, present your ideas clearly, and provide falsifiable predictions.

For example, I take it as a given that somewhere within a few hundred km of these upcoming reentries, some sort of extreme weather event or wildfire will occur. Your prediction is too generic to be falsifiable, therefore it is not science. For example, if you took a much larger sample size and plotted rainfall under the reentry path as a function of reentry kinetic energy, you could show if a correlation seemed to appear.

Having a proposed physical mechanism by which reentering space junk could affect the weather would be helpful as well.