Doppler Radar Problem

Hello Everyone.

Suppose that every image produced by NASA and NOAA of a spherical Earth is faked, as well as visible and IR imagery returned by GOES weather satellites - there is still very hard evidence that the Earth is indeed round (actually there is a lot, but I'll post only one).

When a beam from a Doppler radar leaves the radar site and travels away from the site, it's energy is reflected off of particles such as water, bugs and anything else that it comes into contact with and that energy is returned back to the radar.   If you have ever spent any time looking at doppler weather radar imagery you'll note that when a storm is far away the radar can not "see" the lower portion of the clouds/storms.  However, as those clouds move closer to the radar installation the lower levels of those storms are then returned.  Why is this?

To best illustrate, here is a very simple illustration-


As you can see, the Earth is ROUND and while the beam leaves the radar installation it is traveling AWAY from the Earth.  This does not matter whether the radar is installed on a hill over looking lower and flatter land, or if it's installed at 30 feet of elevation over looking a large body of water (such as the radar sites in Tampa Bay or Miami or Key West).   

When the radar beam reaches about 100 nautical miles, it's about 12,500 feet above the surface.  However if the radar beam is reflected back from only 30 nautical miles the beam's elevation is only about 40 feet above the surface.   This could only happen if the beam was traveling away from the ground as it moved further and further away.  And, it is to some extent 0.5deg, but you do the math and I'm quite sure you'll be stumped as the only way that it could be 12,500 feet above the ground at 100 nautical miles is if there was some other form of distortion causing the beam to get higher and higher up - and the only explanation is....the curvature of the planet Earth.

More info: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gl)/guides/rs/rad/basics/crv.rxml

You guys are really can't be serious anyway... and if you are, then you might as well just go ahead and join the rest of us brainwashed gizmos that believe in a round planet!   Unless of course you plan on producing some geologist, meteorologist, etc...and re-writing all science journals.   

FET accounts for this sort of thing.

Ahh..so when FE theory doesnt hold up, you just invent a total new theory to go with it, that you cant prove, and if you could come up with a valid scientific experiment it would surely show you your wrong.

face it RoboSteve, all the evidence says Earth is round.

FET accounts for this sort of thing.

This is just a theory. you said yourself that you are still working on a mathematical model for this effect and have not tested it. therefore it can not be presented as evidence for FE. test your theory and get it published then you can present it to the forum as scientific evidence for FET.

Then why don't you explain it?

I'd love to talk with a FE Meteorologist!   You see, weather forecasting is based with the starting principle of a round planet.   Thus, the atmosphere has toughs and ridges throughout each level.  The troughs and ridges and created from the planet being "round" its the very core of our science and if it was wrong, then you're television weather guy wouldn't be able to tell you whether or not you should take an umbrella to work with you.   

I'm not a government forecaster, my work doesn't depend on government grants and thus there is no big conspiracy here on my behalf.   

Here is something else that I can't understand.  How could the "world governments" possibly pull off this "round earth" hoax (if it really was a hoax) and what would the advantage to the world governments be for doing so?   There are a lot of people involved in building any type of satellite that gets put out into space - no matter if it's geosynched or in Earth Orbit.   Governments usually contract this stuff out to companies, which in turn hire non-government employees to build these things.  If more than a single person knows a "secret" then it won't be a secret...especially for something this big (you see where I'm going with this?)   I could see it being possible (kept a secret) if every satellite was completely built within NASA's control, but most are not.   On top of that, a lot of different organizations are building a launching satellites from all over the world - including private companies now such as SpaceX.   They have to use the same science and math in order to make this happen - you don't have to have a NASA badge to be a rocket scientist anymore!

Take weather satellites for example - they are built with a several different types of remote sensing cameras on them. 

Here is a live (infrared image) of the Earth: http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/SpectralChannels/MSG2/IR108/index.htm

Notice how the clouds around the poles are a bit more elongated and stretched.   Hypothetically speaking, if the Earth was flat and the satellite that produced that image was built 100% within NASA (it's not, in fact they had nothing to do with it) then I could believe that it would have been possible for NASA to create the software to take a flat image and skew the clouds to make them appear to have some curvature.

However the satellite was built by a contracting company to a European agency.  The cameras are designed to just send back a raw photo as the camera itself sees things - there is no post processing of the images to account for "curvature" - I know this for a fact.

What really kills me is that you claim to be some sort of scientific mind - however you are extremely closed minded.   I am not a person to just believe what the Government (any government) "gives" me either.  But, this is really one argument that I can't even believe that I am trying to make.   I'm not calling you stupid either, but just open your mind a bit to the possibility that just like the Sun and the Moon that the Earth is round. 

Of course, I suppose that when Richard Branson gets back with his first round of tour guest from SpaceShipTwo and you see photos from a non-government "astronaut" who has nothing to prove or no reason to lie for any government... that all your time spent on this "fuzzy math" will be time wasted... just like this forum posting that I just wrote.

I'm sorry Mr. Meteorologist, but what aspect of weather balloons is reliant upon the shape of the Earth?

I'm sorry Mr. Meteorologist, but what aspect of weather balloons is reliant upon the shape of the Earth?

He said stellite, not balloon. Pay attention.

Doesn't matter. What variable of data collected by balloons, buoys, satellites or other instruments is reliant upon the shape of the Earth?

I'm sorry Mr. Meteorologist, but what aspect of weather balloons is reliant upon the shape of the Earth?

Climate models are reliant upon the shape of the earth. Now, back on topic.

Climate models are reliant upon the shape of the earth. Now, back on topic.

Do you have a source?

I don't remember that from any of my schooling. Moreover, a preliminary search online has yielded no evidence that climate models utilize the Earth's shape.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 08:30:40 AM

Climate models are reliant upon the shape of the earth. Now, back on topic.

Do you have a source?

I don't remember that from any of my schooling. Moreover, a preliminary search online has yielded no evidence that climate models utilize the Earth's shape.

Yes. Here is a EBM (energy balance model) I wrote myself.

%% METADATA
% Two-Dimensional Simple Climate Model
% Version 1.0
% Matlab code by Kasper Korsholm Marstal (Copyright 2008)
%
% Based on an Energy Balance Model by North (1975).
% Enhaced with a latitude dependent albedo where no
% ice caps are present, a latitude dependent
% heat capacity, a temperature dependent meriodinal
% diffusion and more advanced outgoing radiation term.

%% INITIALIZE
clear all;
echo off;

%% Control (set to 0 to fall back to North parameters)
advalb = 1;
advheatcap = 1;
advdiff = 1;
advfeedback = 1;

%% SETUP
sb = 5.67*10^(-8); % [sb] = W m^-2 K^-4
yr = 365*24*3600; % [yr] = s
whc = 4180*1000; % heat capacity for one cubmic metre of water, [whc] = J kg^-1 K^-1
A = 203.9; % outgoing radiation parameterization for North feedback
B = 2.09; % outgoing radiation parameterization for North feedback
C_0 = whc*50; % heatcapacity for 50 m^3 water, [C] = J K^-1
D = 0.445; % diffusion constant
dt = 20000; % time resolution, [dt] = s
k = 0.478; % value of climate sensitivity for advanced feedback
deltat_0 = 33.4; % [deltat_0] = K
numx = 181; % grid resolution
Q = 1367/4; % Solar constant [sc] = W m^-2
tmax = 93*yr; % [tmax] = yr

%% SIMULATION ALGORITHM
% Set arrays to speed up loops
% Set X-array
xsouth = -1;
xnorth = 1;
dx = (xnorth-xsouth)/(numx-1);
X = [];
for i = 0 : 1 : numx-1
    X = [ X xsouth+dx*(i) ];
end

% Set solar distribution array
S = [];
for i = 1 : 1 : numx
    S = [ S 1-0.241*(3*X(i)^2-1) ];
end

% Set latitude dependent albedo array if advalb = 1
if (advalb)
    ALB = [];
    for i = 1 : 1 : numx
        ALB = [ ALB 0.30+0.1*(3*X(i)^2-1) ];
    end
end

% Set latitude dependant heat capacity array if advheatcap = 1
if (advheatcap)
    C = [];
    for i = 1 : 1 : numx
        C = [ C dt/((160-40*(3*X(i)^2-1))*whc) ]; %dt/((200-100*(3*X(i)^2-1))*whc)
    end
end

% Set X1 array (used in evaluation of the diffusion)
X1 = [];
for i = 1 : 1 : numx
    n = i-1;
    if(n < 1)
        n = n+numx;
    end
    X1 = [ X1 1-((1/2)*(abs(X(i))+abs(X(n))))^2 ];
end

% Set initial temperature conditions
% First guess
T = [];
for i = 1 : 1 : numx
    T = [ T 303.16-45.*X(i)^2 ];
end

% Equilibrium with present day parameters
G = [244.2380,246.5491,248.1093,249.5257,250.8844,252.2142,253.5281,254.8332,256.1338,257.4330,258.7326,260.0344,261.3395,262.6489,263.9635,265.2408,266.4844,267.6973,268.8821,270.0406,271.1745,272.2853,273.3741,274.4418,275.4894,276.5175,277.5267,278.5177,279.4907,280.4463,281.3848,282.3064,283.2115,284.1001,284.9726,285.8291,286.6697,287.4946,288.3038,289.0975,289.8756,290.6384,291.3858,292.1179,292.8347,293.5363,294.2226,294.8937,295.5496,296.1903,296.8158,297.4262,298.0213,298.6012,299.1660,299.7155,300.2498,300.7688,301.2726,301.7611,302.2344,302.6923,303.1350,303.5622,303.9742,304.3708,304.7519,305.1177,305.4681,305.8030,306.1224,306.4264,306.7149,306.9879,307.2454,307.4874,307.7138,307.9246,308.1199,308.2996,308.4637,308.6122,308.7451,308.8624,308.9640,309.0501,309.1205,309.1752,309.2143,309.2378,309.2456,309.2378,309.2143,309.1752,309.1205,309.0501,308.9640,308.8624,308.7451,308.6122,308.4637,308.2996,308.1199,307.9246,307.7138,307.4874,307.2454,306.9879,306.7149,306.4264,306.1224,305.8030,305.4681,305.1177,304.7519,304.3708,303.9742,303.5622,303.1350,302.6923,302.2344,301.7611,301.2726,300.7688,300.2498,299.7155,299.1660,298.6012,298.0213,297.4262,296.8158,296.1903,295.5496,294.8937,294.2226,293.5363,292.8347,292.1179,291.3858,290.6384,289.8756,289.0975,288.3038,287.4946,286.6697,285.8291,284.9726,284.100,283.2115,282.3064,281.3848,280.4463,279.4907,278.5177,277.5267,276.5175,275.4894,274.4418,273.3741,272.2853,271.1745,270.0406,268.8821,267.6973,266.4844,265.2408,263.9635,262.6489,261.3395,260.0344,258.7326,257.4330,256.1338,254.8332,253.5281,252.2142,250.8844,249.5257,248.1093,246.5491,244.2380];

tmod = [ G ; G ]; % temperature distribution arrays for evalution
Z = G ; % temperature distribution matrix for save

% Initiate vars
c = 0; % time counter for temperature distribution save
p1 = 1; % pointer 1
p2 = 2; % pointer 2

% Further speed up loops
if(~advheatcap) % if not advheadcap
    dtC = dt/C_0;
end
dx2 = dx^2;
yrdt = yr/dt;
Tmean = mean(T);

% Find temperatures
for t = 1 : dt : tmax % time-dependent loop
    if(advdiff)
        dc = D*(1+0.03*(mean(tmod(p1,:))-288)); % Temperature dependent diffusion cofficient
    else
        dc = D;
    end
    for i = 1 : 1 : numx % latitude-dependent loop
        in = i-1;
        ip = i+1;
        if (in < 1);  % these two ifs ensures symmetry around poles
            in = in+numx;
        end
        if (ip > numx);
            ip = ip-numx;
        end
        if (advalb) % if advalb = 1 use advanced albedo feedback
            if (tmod(p1,i) < 263.16)
                a = 0.6;
            else
                a = ALB(i);
            end
        else
            if (tmod(p1,i) < 263.16)
                a = 0.6;
            else
                a = 0.3;
            end
        end
        if (advheatcap)
            dtC = C(i);
        end
        d = (dc/dx2)*(X1(ip)*(tmod(p1,ip)-tmod(p1,i))-X1(i)*(tmod(p1,i)-tmod(p1,in)));
        if(advfeedback)
            f = -sb*(tmod(p1,i)-(deltat_0+k*(tmod(p1,i)-Tmean)))^4; % advanced feedback
        else
            f = -A-B*(tmod(p1,i)-273.16); % North feedback
        end
        tmod(p2,i) = tmod(p1,i)+dtC*(Q*S(i)*(1-a)+f+d); % evaluate and save T(x,t)
    end
     % Save temperature distribution once a year
    c = c+1;
    if (c > yrdt)
        Z = [ Z ; tmod(p2,:) ];
        c = 0;
    end
    % Switch pointers
    psave = p1;
    p1 = p2;
    p2 = psave;
end

%% OUTPUT

% Surfaceplot of temperature distribution matrix
surf(Z)
xlabel('Latitude');
ylabel('Year');
zlabel('Temperature');

% Global mean temperature array
M = [];
for i = 1 : 1 : (tmax/yr)-1;
    M = [ M mean(Z(i,:)) ];
end

% Global mean temperature change
delta_T = M((tmax/yr)-1)-M(1);

[/font][/size]

x being the sine of the latitude. If you don't take this into account it predicts severely incorrect results for the global mean temperature.

I think I will post this in an entirely new topic.

Edit: Go here to discuss the above post: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22247.0.

Quote from: Kasper Marstal on August 15, 2008, 08:30:40 AM

Climate models are reliant upon the shape of the earth. Now, back on topic.

Do you have a source?

I don't remember that from any of my schooling. Moreover, a preliminary search online has yielded no evidence that climate models utilize the Earth's shape.

How hard did you look?  Research these models - WRF/NAM/ETA, MM5, GFS, RUC

You can start here: http://www.wrf-model.org/wrfadmin/docs/arw_v2.pdf

Pay close attention to sections 2.4, and 3.2.2

Did you take any atmopsheric science course in your "schooling"?  If so, where did you go to school, and which program did you go through?

I received my "schooling" from Oklahoma University and Texas A&M.  My undergrad major is Atmospheric Sciences and I received my M.S. from TAMU in the same.   Any class (with emphasis on ANY) that I took related to meteorology discussed the "Curvature of the Earth" and a "Round Planet".   Thus, I would assume that any other meteorology science class from any university on the planet would do the same.   So, you either didn't get any advanced "schooling", didn't take any earth science courses if you did.   3rd and 4th grade doesn't count of course!

FET accounts for this sort of thing.

Your made up shit does not account for anything. 

Quote from: Robosteve on August 15, 2008, 04:35:51 AM

FET accounts for this sort of thing.

Your made up shit does not account for anything. 

I know completely what you're saying. I'm currently going for my bachelors degree in Meteorology.

Ever weather pattern and even model for that matter, is based on the shape of the earth. The NAM, GFS, etc., etc.. would not be the same with a flat earth.

Secondly, people like myself and you know best about this. Our daily career involves so many things that prove the earth is round.

Basically, these people are insane and honestly, pretty ignorant to think the earth is flat.

[/quote]Your made up shit does not account for anything. 
[/quote]

At least he's posting data...FE'ers are posting opinion.