L.A. officials seeded clouds during El Niño storm in hopes of more rain

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: network dude

If clouding seeding were effective, wouldn't it alleviate any and all drought? Even some of it? I say FAIL. Drought history throughout the US even in the last 15 years proves we can't control the rain. On the flip side, all the flooding, just look at the last 15 years for an easy search, we can't control it either.

The cloud seeders 'think' they can control rain but they have absolutely no proof they can, have or will. But hey, I'd rather my tax dollars support that effort rather than new crystal ware for the White House or vacations for the POTUS.

The concept is sound, but i agree that it seems pretty innefective. Do you think that if they scaled up the opertions, it might work better? Only asking cuz you seem to know more about cloud seeding than i do.

Cheers

a reply to: network dude

That's fine...but I'm more interested in my other 90% of my thread.

But I'm with StoutBroux's comment...if it really was that effective, wouldn't it be getting used much more often than it is now? And how would that affect those downwind of the moisture that is being robbed from getting to them? There really is only a finite amount of moisture in the atmosphere at any given local at any given time, so it's not as if making it rain in one place where it may not have isn't going to negatively affect places where that moisture may have naturally become precipitation.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: network dude

That's fine...but I'm more interested in my other 90% of my thread.

But I'm with StoutBroux's comment...if it really was that effective, wouldn't it be getting used much more often than it is now? And how would that affect those downwind of the moisture that is being robbed from getting to them? There really is only a finite amount of moisture in the atmosphere at any given local at any given time, so it's not as if making it rain in one place where it may not have isn't going to negatively affect places where that moisture may have naturally become precipitation.

I agree with you. Having an area grow to fast, then make the decision to dam up a river so that some folks can have a nice supply of fresh water, yet 600 miles downstream, nothing is left, but a dry creek bed is a crappy way to do business. I bet it's looked at much differently depending on where you are in relation to the water's scarcity.

This topic seems not to be talked about much, but if it does really work, then some form of oversight to ensure Nature isn't cheated might be in order.

a reply to: network dude

Well, I'd argue that any manipulation of nature is cheating nature, but I'm not some crazy nut job who doesn't admit that if civilization exists, some manipulation has to happen (like canals, irrigation, pavement, etc.).

I've lived in Bakersfield, Ca., for the first 19 years of my life, then in TN and KY for the remainder of my total 37 years, so I've seen both extremes and understand the case for both. But honestly, droughts are relative, and a drought here in KY would be like a record year of rainfall in Bakersfield, so I get that part of the relativity and whatnot, but I just can't stand how we have environmentalist people screaming about our effect on nature, yet we seem okay with modification like this because of the short-sighted results that it provides.

It's frustrating, but I'm increasingly becoming aware that thought processes like mine--how actions affect other people or the future of areas--is become a scarcity, and that our current culture of immediate gratification is taking over what and how we do things. It sucks.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: network dude

Well, I'd argue that any manipulation of nature is cheating nature, but I'm not some crazy nut job who doesn't admit that if civilization exists, some manipulation has to happen (like canals, irrigation, pavement, etc.).

I've lived in Bakersfield, Ca., for the first 19 years of my life, then in TN and KY for the remainder of my total 37 years, so I've seen both extremes and understand the case for both. But honestly, droughts are relative, and a drought here in KY would be like a record year of rainfall in Bakersfield, so I get that part of the relativity and whatnot, but I just can't stand how we have environmentalist people screaming about our effect on nature, yet we seem okay with modification like this because of the short-sighted results that it provides.

It's frustrating, but I'm increasingly becoming aware that thought processes like mine--how actions affect other people or the future of areas--is become a scarcity, and that our current culture of immediate gratification is taking over what and how we do things. It sucks.

By the way. I think we all agree here, even us chemtrail debunkers that large scale geoengineering is a bad idea. I'm not a hippie, like you, and im happy with small scale projects but i dread to think how man will screw up royally if he attempts to seriously play with the weather.

When that happens or it becomes feasible, i and i imagine many of us her will be firmly against it.

I could be wrong about the others, I don't mean to talk for them. I'm just assuming.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Being a hippie myself, I can only agree with you on that. I only wish that all those who put so much effort into spreading the word on "chemtrails" could put some of that effort into understanding geo-engineering so we can have more eyes on the skies for the right reasons. Most of them think SRM would be visible and identifiable.(and look like contrails)

Why would they use this method if it wasn't going to do anything? Do you know how much it costs to run an air plane and dump silver in clouds? probably not cheap.

Also, how do we know what they seed the clouds with is actually what is being used?

I find this practice very strange.

Cloud seeding over LA CA is not going to do anything to help the water shortage in LA in the summer.

The place to seed is Sierras in Inyo county in central Calif.
en.wikipedia.org...

By the way i live in indian wells valley just below Owens Valley and because of LADWP stealing all the water they are talking about banning New wells in indian wells valley.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
Why would they use this method if it wasn't going to do anything? Do you know how much it costs to run an air plane and dump silver in clouds? probably not cheap.

Also, how do we know what they seed the clouds with is actually what is being used?

I find this practice very strange.

It's been done for over 60 years. It's not new, but it's effectiveness is debatable.
Just remember, the company doing the seeding makes money from this, so their going to tell you it works. The scientific aspect is, would it have rained without any help? Hard to say.

a reply to: network dude

Man the parapits with buckets of doo doo. If they want to believe in poop we'll give them more. LOL

a reply to: StoutBroux

I can control the rain. All I have to do is make plans for an outdoor event. Bamb it rains.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

I think most of the cloud seeding is done from the ground anyway. They shoot rockets up.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Being a hippie myself, I can only agree with you on that. I only wish that all those who put so much effort into spreading the word on "chemtrails" could put some of that effort into understanding geo-engineering so we can have more eyes on the skies for the right reasons. Most of them think SRM would be visible and identifiable.(and look like contrails)

I agree mate.

Secondly line

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bitsforbytes

I think most of the cloud seeding is done from the ground anyway. They shoot rockets up.

Indeed, thats the way many US ski centres do it and, indeed, how it was done over California

North American Weather Consultants has set up land-based generators in 10 locations between Sylmar and Pacoima, Fraser said. Only some of those generators were used Sunday night, as weather conditions were not ideal in all areas.

The generators shoot silver iodide into the clouds, creating ice particles. Water vapor freezes onto those particles, which fall as rain.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: network dude

If clouding seeding were effective, wouldn't it alleviate any and all drought? Even some of it? I say FAIL. Drought history throughout the US even in the last 15 years proves we can't control the rain. On the flip side, all the flooding, just look at the last 15 years for an easy search, we can't control it either.

The cloud seeders 'think' they can control rain but they have absolutely no proof they can, have or will. But hey, I'd rather my tax dollars support that effort rather than new crystal ware for the White House or vacations for the POTUS.

The concept is sound, but i agree that it seems pretty innefective. Do you think that if they scaled up the opertions, it might work better? Only asking cuz you seem to know more about cloud seeding than i do.

Cheers

Here's what I know about cloud seeding......it doesn't seem to work and the title of the thread...."in hopes of more rain...." only validates "they" don't know if it will or won't either......and they're the experts.

originally posted by: StoutBroux

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: network dude

If clouding seeding were effective, wouldn't it alleviate any and all drought? Even some of it? I say FAIL. Drought history throughout the US even in the last 15 years proves we can't control the rain. On the flip side, all the flooding, just look at the last 15 years for an easy search, we can't control it either.

The cloud seeders 'think' they can control rain but they have absolutely no proof they can, have or will. But hey, I'd rather my tax dollars support that effort rather than new crystal ware for the White House or vacations for the POTUS.

The concept is sound, but i agree that it seems pretty innefective. Do you think that if they scaled up the opertions, it might work better? Only asking cuz you seem to know more about cloud seeding than i do.

Cheers

Here's what I know about cloud seeding......it doesn't seem to work and the title of the thread...."in hopes of more rain...." only validates "they" don't know if it will or won't either......and they're the experts.

I personally believe it doesn't really. The concept might be sound but nature isn't playing along for wherever reason. I wouldn't call it a con...that's a bit too harsh, but i think the people who offer it oversell it's potential vastly.

I have spent some time talking weather with a man who has worked in the field a long time, both in the navy and the US Weather Service. He response to seeding based on his connections and work was it has been tried a lot but there was very little success.

a reply to: roadgravel
The trouble is, it's pretty near impossible to determine if a cloud would have precipitated without help.

a reply to: roadgravel

It has been a success in Tasmania, so they claim at least.

www.hydro.com.au...

a reply to: Chadwickus

Yeah. Well, they're selling so would you expect them to say "We're pretty sure it works."

Do they offer your money back?