I'm sorry, but this guy's a flake. He's looking at infra-red images of industrial heat plumes and calling them wild-fires.
The fact is, cities and industry produce large amounts of heat. During the day, when the whole area is warm, the plumes of localized heat don't show up. As the sun goes down and the majority of the land cools, the 'concrete jungles' and industrial sites which are still holding and producing heat begin to show up on an infra-red scan.
I have seen this phenomenon demonstrated in the past. It was one of the first 'internet conspiracies' that I encountered when I first began working with computers in '98. ATT, there was a debunking video posted which showed the same types of plumes over every major metropolitan area.
Notice how he avoids showing places like LA, Chicago, Houston or DFW? You would see the same plumes on a massive scale in those areas. Dutchsinse needs to learn Newton's laws...
This person listed as "Unknown", let's call them CLUELESS, must write speeches for Barry Soetoro and should remain "UNKNOWN".. It takes real talent to gin up the amount of misinformation and half-truths Clueless manages to do in just a few sentences.
In the 1st few sentences of the video the narrator states unequivocally that any speculation by others that all these heat signatures might be wildfires is "absolutely impossible". I'd say that's pretty straight forward and direct, yet Clueless' comments insist the narrator was "calling them wild-fires".. WRONG..
Clueless also states in the first sentence that the infra-red images are "industrial heat plumes" yet there is little to no industry, or even towns in the immediate vicinity of many of the detected plumes. Clueless is correct in the 2nd paragraph regarding the possibly detecting these signatures more so in "concrete jungles" and industrial sites around sunset, but, again, many of the locations of the plumes aren't near these types of structures or areas. HALF-TRUTH AND OBFUSCATION HERE..
In the 4th paragraph Clueless flatly states that the narrator avoids showing places like certain large cities, Houston being among those mentioned. Yet the video map clearly includes the Houston, TX city and industrial complexes within the scope of the area depicted, and there are no plumes whatsoever popping up in the Houston area.. WRONG AGAIN, and CLUELESS remains, well..., clueless..
I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't presume that the information in the video proves or disproves anything other then perhaps begging deeper investigation to determine the actual cause or source of the plumes. If these supposedly scientific findings in the video can be debunked by other valid hard facts of science, then so be it. That doesn't appear to be the case here with Clueless' speculation however as s/he appears to be incorrect on virtually every aspect of her/his explanation.
Unknown's clueless explanation is pseudo-science at it's finest and falls far short of debunking any of the information presented in the video. The clueless writer of Unknown's post clearly demonstrated s/he isn't paying attention to the FACTS or circumstances mentioned in the video and the relevant geography of the areas in question, or s/he has an axe to grind on this topic, or s/he is too smart by half in attempting to debunk this as another of their perceived "internet conspiracies".. It would appear, from "Unknown's" overall mistaken interpretation and analysis of the video, that the only familiarity "Unknown" has with anything related to Newton is in the form of Fig Newton cookies..
Dunno what it is - but it seems to be getting worse:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/user/dutchsinse?feature=watch#p/u/1/sAczH7O8J_Y
I'm sorry, but this guy's a flake. He's looking at infra-red images of industrial heat plumes and calling them wild-fires.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, cities and industry produce large amounts of heat. During the day, when the whole area is warm, the plumes of localized heat don't show up. As the sun goes down and the majority of the land cools, the 'concrete jungles' and industrial sites which are still holding and producing heat begin to show up on an infra-red scan.
I have seen this phenomenon demonstrated in the past. It was one of the first 'internet conspiracies' that I encountered when I first began working with computers in '98. ATT, there was a debunking video posted which showed the same types of plumes over every major metropolitan area.
Notice how he avoids showing places like LA, Chicago, Houston or DFW? You would see the same plumes on a massive scale in those areas. Dutchsinse needs to learn Newton's laws...
This person listed as "Unknown", let's call them CLUELESS, must write speeches for Barry Soetoro and should remain "UNKNOWN".. It takes real talent to gin up the amount of misinformation and half-truths Clueless manages to do in just a few sentences.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1st few sentences of the video the narrator states unequivocally that any speculation by others that all these heat signatures might be wildfires is "absolutely impossible". I'd say that's pretty straight forward and direct, yet Clueless' comments insist the narrator was "calling them wild-fires".. WRONG..
Clueless also states in the first sentence that the infra-red images are "industrial heat plumes" yet there is little to no industry, or even towns in the immediate vicinity of many of the detected plumes. Clueless is correct in the 2nd paragraph regarding the possibly detecting these signatures more so in "concrete jungles" and industrial sites around sunset, but, again, many of the locations of the plumes aren't near these types of structures or areas. HALF-TRUTH AND OBFUSCATION HERE..
In the 4th paragraph Clueless flatly states that the narrator avoids showing places like certain large cities, Houston being among those mentioned. Yet the video map clearly includes the Houston, TX city and industrial complexes within the scope of the area depicted, and there are no plumes whatsoever popping up in the Houston area.. WRONG AGAIN, and CLUELESS remains, well..., clueless..
I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't presume that the information in the video proves or disproves anything other then perhaps begging deeper investigation to determine the actual cause or source of the plumes. If these supposedly scientific findings in the video can be debunked by other valid hard facts of science, then so be it. That doesn't appear to be the case here with Clueless' speculation however as s/he appears to be incorrect on virtually every aspect of her/his explanation.
Unknown's clueless explanation is pseudo-science at it's finest and falls far short of debunking any of the information presented in the video. The clueless writer of Unknown's post clearly demonstrated s/he isn't paying attention to the FACTS or circumstances mentioned in the video and the relevant geography of the areas in question, or s/he has an axe to grind on this topic, or s/he is too smart by half in attempting to debunk this as another of their perceived "internet conspiracies".. It would appear, from "Unknown's" overall mistaken interpretation and analysis of the video, that the only familiarity "Unknown" has with anything related to Newton is in the form of Fig Newton cookies..