HAARP is at it again!!

[Runner]

Contrary to popular understanding, the extreme changes in weather that we are seeing in America, and throughout the world, are due to various methods of weather manipulation/modification. The intensity of storms and completely unprecedented winter conditions are wreaking havoc on our world and the public is growing very tired of the nonsense and all the lies.

The official story is that it is Global Warming, or oops - Climate Change, that is the culprit for all of the never-before-seen weather events that began around the 1990's. Many people are waking up to the fact that this is simply not the case. There are too many unexplained factors that just don't add up. The more people look into these strange weather anomalies, the more they are discovering that weather modification experiments have been conducted by the military since the 1950's - '60's with great success. It is very obvious that the military would not scrap such programs that have proven to be very powerful and very effective.

Those who research the history of HAARP and its true capabilities unanimously conclude that these high tech devices, which are constructed in multiple locations on the earth, are undoubtedly affecting our weather in negative ways all over the world. Whether the organizations in charge of these facilities, and their programs, admit that these HAARP arrays are responsible or not makes no difference to those who take a little time to look into these programs. We became capable of cloud-seeding in the 50's-60's; nobody is buying that we have not advanced enormously in our abilities to control the weather in many ways since that time. And nobody is pleased with the weather that is being experienced all over the world today - especially when it has contributed to untold loss of property and lives.

If we had it our way, these programs would be shut down immediately, those involved would be charged and punished and these weather modification techniques would be banned worldwide. God created this world and all of nature to work like a finely-tuned clock. Meddling with His creation, and with the workings of our world's environment, is an abominable sin toward God and all mankind. The people involved in these programs are the most evil people in the world. May God Almighty deal with them as they so richly deserve.

What do you think can be done about this technology causing so much havoc upon the earth?

What should the public be made aware of concerning the capabilities of such technology to manipulate and modify our weather?

[Runner]

@Miles

Runner wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 4:40 pm
Do you believe we can make it rain?

Miles wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:34 pm
It's been done many, many times.

Runner wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023
Yes?

And how much rain can we artificially cause to fall?

Can we make it flood?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Runner in post #1]

What do you think can be done about this technology causing so much havoc upon the earth?

You've got to be kidding! HAARP is far too small and insignificant to have any real impact on weather, much less climate. From their website FAQ:

The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is the world’s most capable high-power, high frequency (HF) transmitter for study of the ionosphere. The principal instrument is the Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI), a phased array of 180 HF crossed-dipole antennas spread across 33 acres and capable of radiating 3.6 megawatts into the upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Transmit frequencies are selectable in the range of 2.7 to 10 MHz, and since the antennas form a sophisticated phased array, the transmitted beam can take many shapes, can be scanned over a wide angular range and multiple beams can be formed. The facility uses 30 transmitter shelters, each with six pairs of 10 kilowatt transmitters, to achieve the 3.6 MW transmit power.

First, it is concerned primarily with the ionosphere which is well above the altitudes where most weather physics take place and begins about 30 miles above Earth's surface. Second, it is far too small and has far too little power to impact global climate at any level (3.6 MW is nothing ... a typical coal power plant can generate about 500 MW) . It is pure conspiracy theory to think HAARP has anything whatsoever to do with global climate issues (change, or otherwise).

[Runner]

You've got to be kidding! HAARP is far too small and insignificant to have any real impact on weather, much less climate.

From Wikipedia article:

Stanford University professor Umran Inan told Popular Science that ... the power HAARP radiates is very large ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-freq ... ch_Program

The energy beams that it produces are not only active at, or within, the ionosphere. They are bounced off the ionosphere to affect locations all over the world.

[Runner]

What is the possibility that weather manipulation could account for much of the Bible's references to world calamities in the end times accounts?

Earthquakes?

Storms?

Fires?

Floods?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Runner in post #4]

Stanford University professor Umran Inan told Popular Science that ... the power HAARP radiates is very large ...

The radiated power is 3.6 MW ... virtually nothing on the scale needed to impact global climate or cause floods, etc. "very large" is only meaningful relative to something else. 3.6 MW is certainly a powerful source to have in a small lab, but you're talking about enough power to impact climate and 3.6 MW is nothing even locally, especially when directed into the ionosphere.

This reminds me of my younger days in California when the ozone hole was discovered in 1985. Some people suggested that we should figure out a way to pump the LA air down to Antarctica to replenish the ozone levels... they had no ability to actually run the numbers to see how utterly ridiculous and impractical that was (and insignificant even if it could be done). HAARP has virtually zero impact on anything related to the climate on Earth ... it is simply too small and has too little power to impact anything at a global scale.

What is the possibility that weather manipulation could account for much of the Bible's references to world calamities in the end times accounts?

None ... the probability is virtually zero.

[Runner]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #6]

If HAARP has the power necessary to reach the ionosphere, that energy is very easily reflected back to the earth. Weather is very easily affected by heating air masses. If we can create any amount of rain, and rain clouds, it is nothing to cause very significant storms to take place. Even if you don't agree that we have the capability of directing the path of those storms.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Runner in post #7]

If HAARP has the power necessary to reach the ionosphere, that energy is very easily reflected back to the earth. Weather is very easily affected by heating air masses.

It is the power level relative to the amount needed to actually do any of the things you've mentioned that is the issue. Radio waves do bounce off the ionosphere ... that is how Marconi directed some of the first radio transmissions farther than people believed was possible. But 3.6 MW is a piddling nothing. A typical thunderstorm can carry a thousand times this much power:

https://www.livescience.com/65055-thund ... muons.html

HAARP is just too weak to do anything significant to weather or climate on any kind of global scale ... not even close.

[Runner]

[Replying to Runner in post #7]

If HAARP has the power necessary to reach the ionosphere, that energy is very easily reflected back to the earth. Weather is very easily affected by heating air masses.

It is the power level relative to the amount needed to actually do any of the things you've mentioned that is the issue. Radio waves do bounce off the ionosphere ... that is how Marconi directed some of the first radio transmissions farther than people believed was possible. But 3.6 MW is a piddling nothing. A typical thunderstorm can carry a thousand times this much power:

https://www.livescience.com/65055-thund ... muons.html

HAARP is just too weak to do anything significant to weather or climate on any kind of global scale ... not even close.

So your explanation for all the unprecedented weather events (catastrophes) since the 90's is what, exactly?

Too many people giving off CO2 in their daily goings about? The very element that is naturally involved with all living things?

Do you ... know ... how ridiculous that is?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Runner in post #9]

Too many people giving off CO2 in their daily goings about? The very element that is naturally involved with all living things?

You need to crunch some numbers. There are about 8 billion humans on the planet, and the average amount of CO2 exhaled as those humans breathe is about 2.3 lbs/day (we breathe in air at abut 0.04% CO2 and breathe out at about 4-5% CO2). So humans breathing add about 18 billion lbs of CO2 every 24 hour day to the atmosphere. This is 18e9 lbs / 2000 lbs/ton = 9 megatons (if you like metric tons, use 2205 instead of 2000). Humans doing their daily goings about add about 9 megatons of CO2 every day, 0.009 gigatons, or about 3.3 gigatons/year, or about 3.0 metric tons (gigatonnes). This is easily taken up by plants, the oceans, etc. (farm animals and wild animals add to this of course).

Now add industrial CO2 emissions. These are about 37 gigatonnes/year:

posting.php?mode=post_reply&post_num=9&f=17&p=1110525

This is about 12x more than humans, and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the steadily increasing level of industrial production (cement and aluminum manufacturing, fossil fuel emissions, etc.):

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... on-dioxide

Of course correlation does not prove causation, and the global atmospheric CO2 concentration is around 750 gigatonnes. But if more CO2 is added to the atmosphere than plants, oceans, etc. can absorb and recycle, it ends up in the atmosphere as you can clearly see in the link above.

Do you ... know ... how ridiculous that is?

If I claimed that the additional CO2 was caused by humans "giving off CO2 in their daily goings about" it would be ridiculous. But I didn't make that claim. You're ignoring the 12x higher industrial emission levels (not to mention CH4 which has a much higher "greenhouse potential" than CO2 on a per molecule basis ... there is just a lot less of it normally (about 1.8 ppmv compared to around 420 ppmv for CO2).