I Guess Cloud Seeding Works

originally posted by: WaESN
Cloud seeding works (sort of - 25% is rather very optimistic imo) - but it doesn't cause deluges like they have had in Oman and the UAE

www.wired.com...

Now headlines are clearing up That Seattle Times article instead of omitting cloud-seeding.

Historic rainfall in the United Arab Emirates sparks cloud seeding concerns. But experts say climate change is likely to blame for flooding.

And now, even though it works to some degree, they are still going to insist on this crap...

When a .gov source admits it's just as misunderstood.

www.climate.gov...

The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean.

Quote could end there, but it doesnt...

Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.

But they are confident the global warming will be back soon. They want those violent 80's and 90's swings back.

I don't see any "warming" or "wetting" happening, I think people just have goldfish memories that perpetually reset to current events. Its this way now and only going to get worse. Like our "atmospheric rivers". Which are not indicative of a warming climate. They bookend drought years. Some years we get 3.5 inches of rain, some years we get 22.

If you truly look at data, the oscillations between El Nino/La Nina are less pronounced the last 25 years. It was a natural warming trend that happened to occur 1970-2000, and in my opinion there is more likely to be a cooling trend staring around 2030 and last through the middle of century than not.

I don't buy a natural oscillation of climate is more to blame than 7 missions to seed convective formation before it hit Oman and UAE.

The same "they" that says "25% at most", says the "earth is supposed to already be cooling, but because it's not, it means it's warming"

Maybe some climate oscillations are greater, and the 70s-2000 one was largely impacted by our efforts to be a part of the solution.

There's is a legitimate argument the extra variance can be at least "25%" blamed on the environmental regulations themselves by going after SO2 to a greater extent than CO2.

I reject, "Cloud seeding only increases rain 25% so it's definitely global warming."

Could be a naturally occurring 500 year thing, only instead if 4.5 inches they got 6.0?

Maybe it works better in certain convective circumstances?

originally posted by: Degradation33
There's is a legitimate argument the extra variance can be at least "25%" blamed on the environmental regulations themselves by going after SO2 to a greater extent than CO2.

I reject, "Cloud seeding only increases rain 25% so it's definitely global warming."

Could be a naturally occurring 500 year thing, only instead if 4.5 inches they got 6.0?

Maybe it works better in certain convective circumstances?

Awww look at all the nice straws you have grasped there. Bless, they're not worth anything, to anyone, but at least you have something to hold onto.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: Degradation33
There's is a legitimate argument the extra variance can be at least "25%" blamed on the environmental regulations themselves by going after SO2 to a greater extent than CO2.

I reject, "Cloud seeding only increases rain 25% so it's definitely global warming."

Could be a naturally occurring 500 year thing, only instead if 4.5 inches they got 6.0?

Maybe it works better in certain convective circumstances?

Awww look at all the nice straws you have grasped there. Bless, they're not worth anything, to anyone, but at least you have something to hold onto.

Works for me. Especially when it brings about the condescending consensus opinion, with a goldfish memory to laugh, like that somehow changes my opinion.

The Earth is fine.
Southern Icecap gained 661 Gt between 2009 and 2019. Compared to 601 Gt lost in the north.

Our observations show that Antarctic ice shelves gained 661 Gt of ice mass over the past decade, whereas the steady-state approach would estimate substantial ice loss over the same period, demonstrating the importance of using time-variable calving flux observations to measure change.

tc.copernicus.org...

This slow but steady ice loss continued from 2009 until 2019 at an average rate of 55 km2 yr−1, with 601.9 km2 of ice lost throughout the 11-year study period.

Bias measurements made with selective observations. But what about the part of the planet that outweighs the losses in the past decade?

Just don't bring that up. Focus on the Northern Hemisphere. And the "95% reduction there," which is really 20% in 40 years.

eos.org...

The trend in Antarctic sea ice, meanwhile, has confounded scientists—most climate models indicate that Antarctic sea ice extent should have decreased over the past several decades. Here we discuss results from three recent independent studies that all applied a “nudging” technique to the same climate model to study the influences of different processes on Antarctic sea ice extent.

Might as well end that with, "Here we try to still make the counterintuitive results still support the global warming narrative Academia has insisted on since 2006-2007."

Seems like people insisting that 20% ice loss in the arctic in the last 40 years is anthropogenic may be the ones grasping at straws. Trying to keep this "anthropogenic climate shaming agenda" alive. It's like DEI for Earth Scientists. People never consider hemispheric specific changes in climate can periodically swap the albedo concentrations from the North to South. Including warmer wetter weather in one Hemisphere while the other gets cooler and dryer, which is happening. As one pole's losses accelerate, the other one's accretion accelerates.

Anthropocene may exist in people's heads and their minimal number of years studying very selective data.

Except all the ocean birds that are now 10% plastic are real.

a reply to: Degradation33

Wow, you're really invested in that narrative aren't you?

Of course the Earth is fine. Geez. Those straws really are a comfort, aren't they?

Dubai saw rainfall that it's infrastructure was/is unable to deal with. People died as a consequence. Cloud seeding was not carried out in the period before the storm and would have have been ineffective under the weather conditions even if it had been.

The Earth has existed through far, far, far worse conditions than this - both ends of the extreme. We, and any number of our fellow creatures, haven't though. This is all new to us and through our own success at taking advantage of the relative stability of the climate and weather patterns for the last 10,000 years or so we have kind of got ourselves, collectively, in a bit of a pickle. Not only in terms of CO2 levels and the warming, that is only part of it of course, we've rather systematically degraded the environment that we depend upon too, as you point out, and of course - again - it ain't just the birds that are made of plastic, we all have it swimming in our veins too, even babies in the womb.

I realise, for whatever reasons, you feel the need to hang onto the narrative you have built or had built for you, but the rest of the world has kind of moved on.

No CO2 issue other than we are at hisotircal lows on CO2 according to the data that has been proven over and over that CO2 IS PLANT FOOD, PERIOD

I know I am a real Env Scientist for almost 40 years now. I analyze data.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis
a reply to: Degradation33

Wow, you're really invested in that narrative aren't you?

Of course the Earth is fine. Geez. Those straws really are a comfort, aren't they?

Dubai saw rainfall that it's infrastructure was/is unable to deal with. People died as a consequence. Cloud seeding was not carried out in the period before the storm and would have have been ineffective under the weather conditions even if it had been.

The Earth has existed through far, far, far worse conditions than this - both ends of the extreme. We, and any number of our fellow creatures, haven't though. This is all new to us and through our own success at taking advantage of the relative stability of the climate and weather patterns for the last 10,000 years or so we have kind of got ourselves, collectively, in a bit of a pickle. Not only in terms of CO2 levels and the warming, that is only part of it of course, we've rather systematically degraded the environment that we depend upon too, as you point out, and of course - again - it ain't just the birds that are made of plastic, we all have it swimming in our veins too, even babies in the womb.

I realise, for whatever reasons, you feel the need to hang onto the narrative you have built or had built for you, but the rest of the world has kind of moved on.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis
a reply to: Degradation33

Wow, you're really invested in that narrative aren't you?

Of course the Earth is fine. Geez. Those straws really are a comfort, aren't they?

Dubai saw rainfall that it's infrastructure was/is unable to deal with. People died as a consequence. Cloud seeding was not carried out in the period before the storm and would have have been ineffective under the weather conditions even if it had been.

The Earth has existed through far, far, far worse conditions than this - both ends of the extreme. We, and any number of our fellow creatures, haven't though. This is all new to us and through our own success at taking advantage of the relative stability of the climate and weather patterns for the last 10,000 years or so we have kind of got ourselves, collectively, in a bit of a pickle. Not only in terms of CO2 levels and the warming, that is only part of it of course, we've rather systematically degraded the environment that we depend upon too, as you point out, and of course - again - it ain't just the birds that are made of plastic, we all have it swimming in our veins too, even babies in the womb.

I realise, for whatever reasons, you feel the need to hang onto the narrative you have built or had built for you, but the rest of the world has kind of moved on.

The world can move on, their consensus is still retarded sometimes.

I'm not totally convinced we understand milankovitch cycles and Hemisphere specific feedback loops. 20% rise in CO2 levels in 44 years compliments the 20% ice loss in the Arctic.

But once again, the CO2 levels are different (PPM) in the Southern Hemisphere. About 20-25% lower than the Northern.

But 450 PPM is just way to much CO2! And we know this, because we have 130 years of accurate direct measurement without DEMANDED margins for error in temperature to shift and build a narrative around.

I'm just glad it's not the Ordovician Era. I don't think we'd do very well at the 3000-9000 PPM that existed 500 MYA. Of course there's a plus/minus there. It's weird because the data shows vastly different concentrations during the same historical periods +/- 1 million years, of course.

But it's 50% higher than it should be since 1750! Must be CO2 emissions themselves. They focus of initiatives, green whatnot, horrible EVs instead of banning the timber industry. They could line up total deforestation with CO2 rise too.

The earth lost 36% of its forests the last 10,000 years. But more than half that, or an aggregate 20% (AGAIN) Has occurred since 1900.

And theres also the double edged sword of SO2, relatively minimal sulfur concentrations can overpower the warming of water vapor and carbon. That's why volcanos can eject the same amount as human history since 1750 in a single eruption and cool the earth. No SO2 scrubbers on calderas from what I hear.

But the roughly 6500 km² of emissions since 1750 wouldn't even rank it in the TOP 50 of noted VEI-8 eruptions, which happen on once per 50,000 years. That doesn't even include igneous provinces, like the Siberian Traps.

Humans aren't crap compared to a mantle plume. Anoxic oceans averaging 101° F, "The Great Dying". Flood volcanism will do that.

The mantra to push the Anthropocene as a human caused global extinction event is based on an assumption of total biomass, even though less than 20% of total species are currently known of.

I think we are arrogant goldfish memory creatures that latch on to ideas, because a few things line up, and then get belligerent trying to beat others into submission over it.

Southpark may have reversed their opinion, but I still think it's based on our belief that our 130 years of accurate data can assume the margin of error in the Cambrian.

I think our answers are specious at best and overtly bias and prone to the same foul stink that has pushed concensus through mockery since the Vatican still killed astronomers.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because when I went to school we still mocked "Manbearpig". I was concensus once.

Not like I think it can hurt the Earth to cling to my 20 years ago position. It's actually even more fun to argue since consensus changed actually.

originally posted by: Justoneman
I know I am a real Env Scientist for almost 40 years now. I analyze data.

The meaning of "real" is often relative to circumstance. In what sector have you been employed as an "environmental scientist" and for what purpose have you been analysing data?

a reply to: Degradation33

I just think that it would be very wise of Dubai to ensure that next time they have infrastructure in place to capture the benefits of such storms. Harnessed effectively, climate change is handing them, on a platter, the potential to transform their region.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

Can't I do Miami Beach instead?

I mean, we are going to lose all that coastline because of the melting ice. Supposedly, they have a more immediate need for climate-related infrastructure.

NOAA says:

The report projects sea levels along the coastline will rise an additional 10-12 inches by 2050 with specific amounts varying regionally, mainly due to land height changes.

Maybe even go to Venice to save the Indiana Jones Crusade Church from flooding all the time. Acqua Alta all the time now. Which I always thought were king tide/wind related.

But they just keep upping these projections too. Used to be 1 to 2 inches by 2100. Then they decided to make the predictions more stark. Next it will be 2 to 3 feet my 2100.

My honest problem is with Academia. Anthropogenic Climate Change may as well be the CRT of Earth Science. You must acknowledge that our recent ancestors reckless disregard for the environment was the problem and created a mess we must be aware of, because all data since Al Gore absolutely suggests this occurring. And if data from ages past doesn't exactly line up, you can change the margin for error until it does.

Meanwhile there's actually MORE ice on earth right now then 20 years ago if you use a more accurate flux method. You just gotta ignore the Antarctic gain outweighs the arctic loss by about 10% between 2009-2019. Or the dropping Sea level in Antarctica, South America, and Australia. Everyone must focus on selectively measured temperature rise and things as they happen.

Academia isn't anymore.

Like the universities most endowed, it's driven by the same progressive change the world crap.

I have been analyzing atmospheric chemicals since the 80's. Real is real for me. Not sure what real ever means to those who wish to be elusive and might be pushing narratives.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: Justoneman
I know I am a real Env Scientist for almost 40 years now. I analyze data.

The meaning of "real" is often relative to circumstance. In what sector have you been employed as an "environmental scientist" and for what purpose have you been analysing data?

originally posted by: Justoneman
No CO2 issue other than we are at hisotircal lows on CO2 according to the data that has been proven over and over that CO2 IS PLANT FOOD, PERIOD

I know I am a real Env Scientist for almost 40 years now. I analyze data.

Not a very good environmental scientist, if that's what you think!

Historic means within human recorded history. CO2 levels are now at historic high levels.

In geological terms, they are also extremely high - the highest they have been since human ancestors were living in the trees back in the Pliocene - 4 million years ago.

And plants need more than CO2 to thrive.

a reply to: Degradation33

It absolutely does work. In 2016 I think it was, there were weather modification operations here in the US. These operations caused heavy snowfalls. Which, in turn, were blamed on Global Warming.

At one point we have to realize that some folks are actually manufacturing real-life fake evidences in favor of global warming, that ecoterrorism is now a thing.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

I don't think we're asking the correct questions.

The question I would like governments to answer is, is cloud seeding used as a tool to manufacture fake evidences in favor of global warming?

They now have the technology to create heavy rainfall at one point on Earth and a subsequent lack of rain at another point of Earth. The US government says that it cannot be held liable for damages caused by its weather modifications activities.

Don't you feel there's some questions worth exploring on that topic? When will we begin drawing a line between harmless experiments and downright ecoterrorism?

originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: Degradation33

It absolutely does work. In 2016 I think it was, there were weather modification operations here in the US. These operations caused heavy snowfalls. Which, in turn, were blamed on Global Warming.

At one point we have to realize that some folks are actually manufacturing real-life fake evidences in favor of global warming, that ecoterrorism is now a thing.

I'm not sure about the US. But it has been proven China altered the weather for the Beijing Olympics. It's weird they're trying to act like this is a new thing when it has been happening for almost 80ish years.

www.businessinsider.com...

Starred by me for the pure laugh quality. CO2 was super high compared to today like way over 1000 ppb.

originally posted by: WaESN

originally posted by: Justoneman
No CO2 issue other than we are at hisotircal lows on CO2 according to the data that has been proven over and over that CO2 IS PLANT FOOD, PERIOD

I know I am a real Env Scientist for almost 40 years now. I analyze data.

Not a very good environmental scientist, if that's what you think!

Historic means within human recorded history. CO2 levels are now at historic high levels.

In geological terms, they are also extremely high - the highest they have been since human ancestors were living in the trees back in the Pliocene - 4 million years ago.

And plants need more than CO2 to thrive.

Great question in fact. I suspect yes.

If it rains too much, or there is a drought they say global warming,

If it is cold, or it still snows when the prediction was never again, they say global warming.

We can't have it both ways, but they will try.

originally posted by: leongrad
a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

I don't think we're asking the correct questions.

The question I would like governments to answer is, is cloud seeding used as a tool to manufacture fake evidences in favor of global warming?

They now have the technology to create heavy rainfall at one point on Earth and a subsequent lack of rain at another point of Earth. The US government says that it cannot be held liable for damages caused by its weather modifications activities.

Don't you feel there's some questions worth exploring on that topic? When will we begin drawing a line between harmless experiments and downright ecoterrorism?

a reply to: seekshelter

Yes exactly.

NOAA has great reports on the topic.

libguides.library.noaa.gov...

The NOAA's the last organization I know of that provides publicly-available reports of weather modification activities.
Although, I've got to point out they don't provide as much info as they used to back in the 2010's. Still, some operations are on record there, the purpose of those operations, the time of the year, and the chemicals used.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yep that's how they dance.

a reply to: leongrad

Interesting information. Just occurred to me they could already be using this in Ukraine/Russia.

originally posted by: Degradation33

Can't I do Miami Beach instead?

By all means. Alot of effort is going into "preserving" that coastline but it is futile. The water level has been rising steadily for thousands of years. Florida is the classic example of this climate change - dryer gets dryer, wetter, well, wetter. That steady increase looks to be doubling in pace and Miami Beach is fighting the change, throwing millions at elevating roads, millions buying sand to replace what sea and storm erosion are taking, all to preserve an image because that's what the tourists pay for.

By contrast, it has been decided to let the sea take the Keys. Not worth the investment needed to preserve it. Alot of money going to the Everglades of course. The water security, amongst other things, of pretty much the whole state depends upon them.

Florida isn't going to benefit from climate change in the same way as Dubai has the potential to because of the last 150 years, or thereabouts, of development of Florida. The natural environment has been so eroded by human occupation, and exploitation, that it cannot really support human occupation - or pretty much any mammalian occupation - the manatee and the Key deer are on the point of extinction, toxic red algaes are an increasing problem and as a consequence marine life has suffered significant die-offs that have impacts throughout the food chain.

And, the situation is still being exploited for gain. Given that parts of Florida are only 6 feet above sea-level the scramble to gain ownership of any elevated land has led to traditionally poor neighbourhoods being moved out to make room for high-cost developments. The $650 million that Ron DeSantis pledged to restore the Everglades is for the benefit of those moving in. Those moving out, who have shouldered the actual burden, financial or otherwise, of the increase in extreme weather without the natural buffer that a healthy Everglades would provide, have been literally and figuratively screwed.

"Corporate American" knew this was coming and instead of taking action to avert disaster looked at ways to capitalise on it.

But then they would, wouldn't they?