Scientific evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global warming revisited

[Roger E. Moore]

Real researchers answer questions about their theories. That is science. Stonewalling and insulting questioners is not science. Have the courtesy to answer questions.

[Roger E. Moore]

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.

Okay, so you are arguing that when NASA dropped the S-IVB Saturn-Apollo rocket boosters (third stages, you know) into the Pacific, and when the space shuttle Challenger blew up, these directly caused cyclones (Indian Ocean hurricanes) that struck Australia. Is this correct?

You are saying that when the Challenger blew up over the Atlantic near Florida, this produced cyclones in Australia. Yes?

And you are aware that many of the S-IVB rocket stages for Saturn V's never landed on Earth, they went into solar orbit or struck the Moon, right? I think Wikipedia has a page on this. (LATE ADD: The S-IVB from Apollo 4 (uncrewed) impacted the Pacific Ocean at 23.435N, 161.207E, in 1967. Only one did it, unless you count Skylab 1 hitting the far west coast of Australia and Indian Ocean. No majority of S-IVB's did this. You have done no research.)

I find it impossible to believe you are doing any actual fact-checking, as your thesis is so riddled with errors as to boggle the mind. I think I am done here.

[Swift]

Real researchers answer questions about their theories. That is science. Stonewalling and insulting questioners is not science. Have the courtesy to answer questions.

I pick this as an example. Let's all drop the comments about what is or is not science, who is or is not doing science, and who is or is not reading others' posts. Let's stick to questions and answers and leave out the editorial comments.

[Reality Check]

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

I read your title for the thread and your OP. The OP has nothing about the "Scientific evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global warming"! Thus my questions and some of the replies.

Your OP is a list of "discarded aerospace Rocket Bodies" reentering. Your OP mentions rainfall in Australia during 17th and 18th of January 2020 at the time of a few reentries. Your ATM idea actually is that the coincidence of reentry during those days is a cause of the rainfall. So formal questions:
IF01: What the energy released during the reentry of these rockets? How does it compare to the energy of a rainstorm?
IF02: What is your mechanism for these rocket reentries to produce rainfall? How much of the "250mm-300mm (over 10-12 inches) of rainfall" did the rockets contribute according to that mechanism?
IF03: List the cyclones that followed natural paths that were more like a staggering drunks than some of the more vicious and powerful cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons created during the Apollo program. An answer is there were no cyclones in which case list the increased rainfall that your ATM idea requires.

You have 1 data point so far and a vague "prediction". You cannot even make the mistake of correlation = cause yet . We have many decades of data on rocket reentries and weather that you could have used.

The replies include other flaws in your idea.

• There is no evidence that the reentry of Skylab in 1979 caused any rainfall.
• There is no evidence that thousands of tonnes of meteoroids entering the atmosphere each year cause any rainfall.
• Ditto for meteors.
• The target for many rocket reentries is "Halfway between New Zealand and South America in the Pacific" which requires a trajectory starting over Australia and New Zealand. So the actual disintegration of a rocket during reentry would probably not be over Australia.

[profloater]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

this reference mentions bacteria as seeds, I wonder if other particles could be active in saturated or super saturated air?

[Van Rijn]

.

Your OP is a list of "discarded aerospace Rocket Bodies" reentering. Your OP mentions rainfall in Australia during 17th and 18th of January 2020 at the time of a few reentries. Your ATM idea actually is that the coincidence of reentry during those days is a cause of the rainfall. So formal questions:
IF01: What the energy released during the reentry of these rockets? How does it compare to the energy of a rainstorm?

Correction: Per the OP, the flooding started on the 17th, when all three examples were still in orbit. Example one reentered at 5AM on the 18th, so more than five hours after the flooding started. Example two was predicted to reenter on the 22nd (a day ahead of here I think, so today). Example three was predicted to reenter on the 24th (a couple days from now).

I would suggest it is pointless to consider reentry energy since the claim isn’t about reentry.

[Reality Check]

Correction: Per the OP, the flooding started on the 17th, when all three examples were still in orbit. Example one reentered at 5AM on the 18th, so more than five hours after the flooding started. Example two was predicted to reenter on the 22nd (a day ahead of here I think, so today). Example three was predicted to reenter on the 24th (a couple days from now).

I would suggest it is pointless to consider reentry energy since the claim isn’t about reentry.

I would say that the OP claim is about reentry and rainfall but is debunked by the OP! That information suggests a more fundamental question .
IF00: Explain how the floods happened before the reentries when the OP claim is about reentries and flooding, LaurieAG?

The future reentries are an attempt at a "prediction". That seems to be increased rainfall or floods on 22nd, 24th, etc. in Australia. Of course he needs to determine if any rainfall was actually increased.

[LaurieAG]

Hopefully this will sort out some misconceptions and keep things simple without getting into atmospheric density differences between altitudes of 500km and 125km.

The basic Pressure Law is Pressure by volume (constant) = k (temperature)

Consider TIANGONG 1 re-entered after an average altitude drop of 1km per day over its last month as per my calculations made a month before the re-entry below.



The pressure influence generated by a constant volume of the atmosphere under its average direct influence would consistently equal (1*45)/(24*60) or 1/32 (0.03125) for each 45 minute period during its last month of re-entry.

Compared with CZ-3B R/B last Friday night, the altitude drop over one 45 minute period that ended at it's low pass over South Eastern Australia was 374.78km so the ratio of the differences in altitude drops between TIANGONG 1 and CZ-3B R/B adjusted to this specific 45 minute time period and the temperature difference, if the v remained constant, would mean that the ratio between the 2 would be 374.78*32 = 11,992.96 and the temperature would be multiplied by this ratio if the atmospheric volume under the direct influence of CZ-3B R/B did not change.

I hope you bothered to read down to here because I am not suggesting that the atmospheric volume under the influence of CZ-3B R/B and the other 2 rocket bodies kept the volume constant but I do suggest that the atmospheric volume under the direct influence of this heated expansion did increase in a certain capacity and the temperature also increased according to the ratio provided above and that the combination of these 2 factors is what has been driving our Australian weather conditions for the past 2 months. .

The Australian Rainfall total map for the past week is below.



I will be back in 6 hours to respond to other replies made prior to this post.

[Reality Check]

Hopefully this will sort out some misconceptions ....

A post irrelevant to the thread other than emphasizing that the ATM idea is unsupported assertions.
IF00: Explain how the floods happened before the reentries when the OP claim is about reentries and flooding, LaurieAG? (or show that the floods happened after the reentries)

You assert that the recent "CZ-3B R/B and the other 2 rocket bodies" somehow drove "our Australian weather conditions for the past 2 months". That is obviously wrong. You have to at least correlate the reentries over the last 2 months with the increased rainfall you think that they produce. You have to provide a mechanism for that extra rainfall.

P.S. The atmospheric density differences between altitudes of 500km and 125km is definitely irrelevant. The difference is essentially zero because that is space. Weather does not happen between 500km and 125km - again that is space. Clouds that produce rain and snow generally have bases at around 2 kilometers.

[Roger E. Moore]

I hope you bothered to read down to here because I am not suggesting that the atmospheric volume under the influence of CZ-3B R/B and the other 2 rocket bodies kept the volume constant but I do suggest that the atmospheric volume under the direct influence of this heated expansion did increase in a certain capacity and the temperature also increased according to the ratio provided above and that the combination of these 2 factors is what has been driving our Australian weather conditions for the past 2 months.

There is still nothing to connect the temperature increase of reentering spacecraft with the actual change in weather over Australia. There are no statistics on how much the atmosphere over Australia increased in volume or temperature. It is not enough to say the "atmospheric volume under the direct influence of this heated expansion did increase in a certain capacity" (no numbers, just a vague guess), and it is not enough to say the atmospheric "temperature also increased according to the ratio provided above" because that has not been documented or proven. No proof, no facts, no connection, just folklore.

[Roger E. Moore]

You again mention Tiangong 1. Here is your earlier quote.

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.

Are you aware that Tiangong 1 reentered the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner, tumbling as it fell? It was not deliberately landed, and it did not come down like a glider. And you are still wrong about landing on a pontoon.

https://www.space.com/40168-china-sp...-tracking.html

"To forecast where a satellite like the falling Tiangong-1 is going next, researchers have to take into account the drag of Earth's upper atmosphere — a challenging feat, because that changes as the spacecraft tumbles at different angles and also as the atmosphere expands and contracts with temperature changes, altering from day to day and based on how active the sun is... It's very difficult to precisely predict how an object like Tiangong-1 is tumbling. Researchers have to make do with an average impact of wind as it hits the object's different dimensions, and, though the actions of the atmosphere can be calculated based on what other satellites are doing, that method doesn't give instantaneous details."

[Van Rijn]

Consider TIANGONG 1 re-entered after an average altitude drop of 1km per day over its last month as per my calculations made a month before the re-entry below.

[snip]

Compared with CZ-3B R/B last Friday night, the altitude drop over one 45 minute period that ended at it's low pass over South Eastern Australia was 374.78km so the ratio of the differences in altitude drops between TIANGONG 1 and CZ-3B R/B adjusted to this specific 45 minute time period and the temperature difference, if the v remained constant, would mean that the ratio between the 2 would be 374.78*32 = 11,992.96 and the temperature would be multiplied by this ratio if the atmospheric volume under the direct influence of CZ-3B R/B did not change.

Do you have or can you find the orbital elements of these objects and how they changed is their orbits decayed?

Tiangong 1 was a space station, and presumably had a circular or near-circular orbit. It sounds like the CZ-3B R/B booster had an elliptical orbit and in that case you would just be discussing apogee vs perigee. Such an object doesn’t lose energy just because it moves down to perigee in its orbit. It would meet some atmospheric drag (mostly at perigee). Tiangong 1 on the other hand would experience drag constantly due to the circular orbit. You would need to know orbital elements and atmospheric density at each point in orbit to calculate energy loss due to drag properly.

I hope you bothered to read down to here because I am not suggesting that the atmospheric volume under the influence of CZ-3B R/B and the other 2 rocket bodies kept the volume constant but I do suggest that the atmospheric volume under the direct influence of this heated expansion did increase in a certain capacity and the temperature also increased according to the ratio provided above and that the combination of these 2 factors is what has been driving our Australian weather conditions for the past 2 months. .

Sorry, that doesn’t make sense. These things were in orbit in a very good vacuum. There still would be some molecules of air, and the objects would be moving fast, so encounter some drag as they get lower but the molecules at that altitude are in ballistic paths and can travel a good distance before encountering other molecules. In other words, the remaining atmosphere doesn’t really act much like a gas at that point. Heat loss from the objects in orbit, limited as it is, would be lost through radiation. It wouldn’t cause local atmospheric expansion.

In any event, the energy loss is so minimal, and is so far above actual weather, it isn’t plausible that it would have any effect, let alone cause major weather events.

[LaurieAG]

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.)

I will reply about these and other natural objects after I check all current responses as they are related but it is another multiple post response so I will check down to my earlier post today on the different atmospheric pressures during the re-entry of TIANGONG 1 and these Rocket Boosters and respond then.

[LaurieAG]

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.

If you define right as 'wrong' that doesn't mean that you are right. Please refer to my previous post and then look at the posts I make after I wade through this word salad swamp.

[LaurieAG]

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."

I will reply to your comment in bulk in my end post tonight after I check for any constructive posts.

[Strange]

I will reply about these and other natural objects after I check all current responses as they are related but it is another multiple post response so I will check down to my earlier post today on the different atmospheric pressures during the re-entry of TIANGONG 1 and these Rocket Boosters and respond then.

Once again, you are avoiding answering by talking about something completely irrelevant to the question asked.

Again, do you now acknowledge that you are talking about weather and that this has absolutely no connection to "anthropogenic climate change and global warming" (as the title of the thread says)?

This is a simple question and doesn't require any comments about meteors or rocket boosters.

[LaurieAG]

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.)

I refer you to read Aristophanes 'The Clouds' with regards to the petty sophistric differences between 'right' and 'wrong'. He didn't get his play right because the ancient Greeks had no real concept of 'rape' and 'wrong' argued that he was 'right' because the punishment for adultery in ancient Greece, according to the English translation in the Penguin Classics series, was 'raddish buggery' when the perpetrator was captured by the husband. This involved inserting the largest root vegetable in your larder up the backside of the captured offender, which 'wrong' thought of as pleasurable because, as he argued, most of the ancient Athenian magistrates like doing that sort of thing with little boys.

Incidentally I would have corrected Aristophanes 'The clouds' by getting an enlightened and therefore respected local magistrate to grab the 'cloak of TRUTH' that 'right' had flung into the audience in disgust at 'wrong's sophistry and get him to present it back to 'right' by saying 'We operate under the basis of do unto others as you would have them do unto you' so that sophistry would not win and the academy wouldn't be burnt down.

My final post tonight will be a large one that covers the issues raised so I will continue and refer everybody back to my final post tonight after checking for genuine concerns not covered in it.

[LaurieAG]

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?

I will respond in my last post tonight.

[LaurieAG]

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.

I gather you haven't seen my earlier post comparing TIANGONG 1's re-entry pressure, these Rocket Booster re-entry pressures and the resulting pressure/temperature changes involved so I refer you to that post.

I will respond in more detail in my last post tonight.

[LaurieAG]

Going back to the OP



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.

Please re-read my OP and notice that I refer to AEST which is UTC+10 i.e. at 10:01am AEST on the 17th it is 00:01am UTC or GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) which is the same. The times and dates on the Satview program are in UTC/GMT.

[LaurieAG]

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



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.

Please refer to my earlier post today with regards to the differences between the TIANGONG 1 re-entry pressure/temp and the Rocket Booster pressure/temps.

I will respond in more detail in my last post tonight.

[LaurieAG]

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.

Please refer to my earlier post today with regards to the differences between the TIANGONG 1 re-entry pressure/temp and the Rocket Booster pressure/temps.

I will respond in more detail in my last post tonight.

[LaurieAG]

Real researchers answer questions about their theories. That is science. Stonewalling and insulting questioners is not science. Have the courtesy to answer questions.

Please refer to my earlier post today with regards to the differences between the TIANGONG 1 re-entry pressure/temp and the Rocket Booster pressure/temps.

I will respond in more detail in my last post tonight.

[Strange]

I refer you to read Aristophanes 'The Clouds' with regards to the petty sophistric differences between 'right' and 'wrong'.

Yet more irrelevant digressions. I never mentioned Aristophanes or right vs wrong.

I pointed out that you appear not know the difference between weather and climate and asked to to either confirm that or correct your claims. You cannot do either of these.

[LaurieAG]

Okay, so you are arguing that when NASA dropped the S-IVB Saturn-Apollo rocket boosters (third stages, you know) into the Pacific, and when the space shuttle Challenger blew up, these directly caused cyclones (Indian Ocean hurricanes) that struck Australia. Is this correct?

You are saying that when the Challenger blew up over the Atlantic near Florida, this produced cyclones in Australia. Yes?

And you are aware that many of the S-IVB rocket stages for Saturn V's never landed on Earth, they went into solar orbit or struck the Moon, right? I think Wikipedia has a page on this. (LATE ADD: The S-IVB from Apollo 4 (uncrewed) impacted the Pacific Ocean at 23.435N, 161.207E, in 1967. Only one did it, unless you count Skylab 1 hitting the far west coast of Australia and Indian Ocean. No majority of S-IVB's did this. You have done no research.)

I find it impossible to believe you are doing any actual fact-checking, as your thesis is so riddled with errors as to boggle the mind. I think I am done here.

The SIV-B was the Rocket Booster that pushed the command module and lander into the moons orbit and many were boosted into orbits towards the sun but at least one returned and swapped between orbiting the earth as a quasi moon and orbiting the sun etc. I have also wondered how you could completely drain the propellant from a SIV-B, with the solid stage ullage engines that caused the propellant to move towards the engine nozzles and the internal pumps to push everything back from the inside, that had enough propellant to boost a 50kg payload into the equivalent moon orbit of a much larger payload without freezing up the outlet nozzles and blocking the liquid propellant inside. The only difference in the entire full booster restart program was the 'IGNITION' code so I doubt that NASA would have ever allowed humans aboard an untested system after the fire accident, or fail to continue to the IGNITION stage if everything else tested OK up to that point.

I would not be surprised if some/much of the data that has been made available is incorrect due to IP/cold war reasons as even the Chinese details for their current Rocket boosters under 'development' are equivalent to the SV Rocket Boosters in boost capability but the retirement dates of their previous launches and their latest launches indicate a much higher level of technology, i.e. moon launch ready, which has been indicated by those launches required to put their rover on the dark side of the moon (which is equivalent to the vacuum total propellant exhaustion test without ignition mentioned above! really) but are recorded as being nowhere near the SV booster specs as retired on the same page below so I suspect that Both the Chinese AND the US specification figures aren't correct for exactly the same reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...launch_systems

If the Chinese Rocket Boosters coming to their low points overhead aren't the equivalent of the SV boosters and aren't at the locations referred to in Satview then what is being tracked/recorded by US STRATCOM and other stations around the world as shown in the plots and re-entry details published? As I'm not the one suggesting any conspiracy theory, I am referring to information made available then the figures I have given in my OP must be given the benefit of the doubt unless incorrect information is being deliberately published, like the re-entry location for the last booster coming down tomorrow in my area. Check the first image in the third post of my OP (Satview/US STRATCOM projection image and times for the Indian Rocket Booster) and you will see what I mean. These figures aren't correct.

Please don't think I'm being facetious because the results were very similar with TIANGONG 1 and they did the same 'chicken little' stunt a couple of times during the TIANGONG re-entry but their re-entry projection figures were extremely wrong due to unusual UTC variations (i.e. out by 4 hours between 4:00am AEST and resetting to the correct UTC time at 10:00am AEST until the day just before (i.e. 8:00pm to 4:00am Damascus time) the alleged Douma Chlorine bomb attack in Syria, I have previously discussed this issue on the Cosmoquest 'our server time is out' page). Considering I projected the correct re-entry time for TIANGONG 1, 1 month before it re-entered, with a simple geometric method for a gentle 'glide' in re-entry, despite the incorrect data made available, my understanding of the problems associated with the data I have used and the caveats I made in the OP should be respected.

[LaurieAG]

I read your title for the thread and your OP. The OP has nothing about the "Scientific evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change and Global warming"! Thus my questions and some of the replies.

Your OP is a list of "discarded aerospace Rocket Bodies" reentering. Your OP mentions rainfall in Australia during 17th and 18th of January 2020 at the time of a few reentries. Your ATM idea actually is that the coincidence of reentry during those days is a cause of the rainfall. So formal questions:
IF01: What the energy released during the reentry of these rockets? How does it compare to the energy of a rainstorm?
IF02: What is your mechanism for these rocket reentries to produce rainfall? How much of the "250mm-300mm (over 10-12 inches) of rainfall" did the rockets contribute according to that mechanism?
IF03: List the cyclones that followed natural paths that were more like a staggering drunks than some of the more vicious and powerful cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons created during the Apollo program. An answer is there were no cyclones in which case list the increased rainfall that your ATM idea requires.

You have 1 data point so far and a vague "prediction". You cannot even make the mistake of correlation = cause yet . We have many decades of data on rocket reentries and weather that you could have used.

The replies include other flaws in your idea.

• There is no evidence that the reentry of Skylab in 1979 caused any rainfall.
• There is no evidence that thousands of tonnes of meteoroids entering the atmosphere each year cause any rainfall.
• Ditto for meteors.
• The target for many rocket reentries is "Halfway between New Zealand and South America in the Pacific" which requires a trajectory starting over Australia and New Zealand. So the actual disintegration of a rocket during reentry would probably not be over Australia.

Please have a look at the images in my 3 OP posts, read my previous responses and my last response before replying. I will respond to your question in my last multi stage response. below.

[LaurieAG]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

this reference mentions bacteria as seeds, I wonder if other particles could be active in saturated or super saturated air?

Please refer to my final 4 part post today, for a comprehensive answer.

[LaurieAG]

Correction: Per the OP, the flooding started on the 17th, when all three examples were still in orbit. Example one reentered at 5AM on the 18th, so more than five hours after the flooding started. Example two was predicted to reenter on the 22nd (a day ahead of here I think, so today). Example three was predicted to reenter on the 24th (a couple days from now).

I would suggest it is pointless to consider reentry energy since the claim isn’t about reentry.

I stated all of the relevant details about their locations and directions including their current/projected re-entry times etc in my OP including what you refer to now in post 66 of this thread.

[LaurieAG]

I would say that the OP claim is about reentry and rainfall but is debunked by the OP! That information suggests a more fundamental question .
IF00: Explain how the floods happened before the reentries when the OP claim is about reentries and flooding, LaurieAG?

The future reentries are an attempt at a "prediction". That seems to be increased rainfall or floods on 22nd, 24th, etc. in Australia. Of course he needs to determine if any rainfall was actually increased.

Please read my post about the pressure/temperature differences resulting from the ratio between TIANGONG 1's re-entry and these re-entries that I posted directly after your post above.

[LaurieAG]

Wow that's a good one, I just had to reboot and reset my Wifi after an Intel Graphics driver update that was rejected by my Intel driver update as not being signed by Intel. I was also momentarily blocked from Cosmoquest so I hope it is nothing to do with my ZTE Wi Fi.

A post irrelevant to the thread other than emphasizing that the ATM idea is unsupported assertions.
IF00: Explain how the floods happened before the reentries when the OP claim is about reentries and flooding, LaurieAG? (or show that the floods happened after the reentries)

You assert that the recent "CZ-3B R/B and the other 2 rocket bodies" somehow drove "our Australian weather conditions for the past 2 months". That is obviously wrong. You have to at least correlate the reentries over the last 2 months with the increased rainfall you think that they produce. You have to provide a mechanism for that extra rainfall.

P.S. The atmospheric density differences between altitudes of 500km and 125km is definitely irrelevant. The difference is essentially zero because that is space. Weather does not happen between 500km and 125km - again that is space. Clouds that produce rain and snow generally have bases at around 2 kilometers.

It was the moisture that was herded by the pressure and temperature generated by these 3 Rocket Boosters swooping to their low passes overhead during the first 4 hours of the rainfall that drove the rain and caused the flooding. There were also some other reasons that I am not at liberty to discuss here unless moderators approve as the flooding also has something to do with the 530,000 properties with high landslide risk in my state, as published on the front page of my state newspaper this morning. All I will say is that I worked for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Engineers performing site surveys for housing blocks on unstable slopes, to ensure correct foundation designs, before the 'red tape' of this mandatory foundation report was cut.

Please read the BOM PDF on Satellite Decay Calculations and space weather as referred to in my earlier posts and refer to my previous posts before this response before replying. I will explain the overall mechanism in my last 4 posts tonight.