A PBS Documentary. (FULL)
Last edited:
Not sure how I feel about this - Weather Mod.
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
What gives you pause?
I retired from the Desert Research Institute, mentioned as having done some research for them. I wasn't in the weather modification department, but worked directly with colleagues in the weather mod program on research as to the effectiveness of the Sierra Nevada seeding program. So, while not my main field, I picked up a lot of information about the seeding program. That clip was informative and factual. Maybe I can answer some questions that weren't covered.
Ed
I retired from the Desert Research Institute, mentioned as having done some research for them. I wasn't in the weather modification department, but worked directly with colleagues in the weather mod program on research as to the effectiveness of the Sierra Nevada seeding program. So, while not my main field, I picked up a lot of information about the seeding program. That clip was informative and factual. Maybe I can answer some questions that weren't covered.
Ed
I'm just not sure that we should be mucking with the weather. I also don't think it's a good idea to be burning propane in what will be mega amounts if they decide to use this mainstream for high drought areas.
I also don't like more chemical in the air.
I also don't like more chemical in the air.
dnewton3
Staff member
Sooooo .... we are going to now burn a fossil fuel, and add chemicals, to introduce them into the atmosphere, to attempt to modify the generation of precipitation. Ironic; I've been told for decades now that all the evils of weather and climate change are due to fossil fuel consumption, and the only solution is to get away from fossil fuels.
Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?
Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Sooooo .... we are going to now burn a fossil fuel, and add chemicals, to introduce them into the atmosphere, to attempt to modify the generation of precipitation. Ironic; I've been told for decades now that all the evils of weather and climate change are due to fossil fuel consumption, and the only solution is to get away from fossil fuels.
Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?
YES!
Sooooo .... we are going to now burn a fossil fuel, and add chemicals, to introduce them into the atmosphere, to attempt to modify the generation of precipitation. Ironic; I've been told for decades now that all the evils of weather and climate change are due to fossil fuel consumption, and the only solution is to get away from fossil fuels.
Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?
YES!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Sooooo .... we are going to now burn a fossil fuel, and add chemicals, to introduce them into the atmosphere, to attempt to modify the generation of precipitation. Ironic; I've been told for decades now that all the evils of weather and climate change are due to fossil fuel consumption, and the only solution is to get away from fossil fuels.
Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?
The thread was quite innocent...why would a mod bring in that topic which shall not be discussed ?
Back to StevieC's post...
https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4783.htm
Seems funny to sign a treaty on that which we don't have, doesn't it ?
Sooooo .... we are going to now burn a fossil fuel, and add chemicals, to introduce them into the atmosphere, to attempt to modify the generation of precipitation. Ironic; I've been told for decades now that all the evils of weather and climate change are due to fossil fuel consumption, and the only solution is to get away from fossil fuels.
Ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?
The thread was quite innocent...why would a mod bring in that topic which shall not be discussed ?
Back to StevieC's post...
https://www.state.gov/t/isn/4783.htm
Seems funny to sign a treaty on that which we don't have, doesn't it ?
dnewton3
Staff member
I'm not really sure where you believe the "innocence" was lost in my first post; just what is it that "shall not be discussed" that I brought up???
This is a thread about the underlying onset of unintended consequences, and IMO, a large dollop of irony ...
StevieC's concern is valid, IMO.
Let's consider other recent programs where we tried to solve a problem, hastily. Or, more to the point, may have leapt into a program not so much in ignorance, but in arrogance, promoting one technology over another, because the detracting concerns were voiced prior to the wide-spread deployment of such efforts.
Wind energy has had limited success; depends upon whom you want to believe, but ...
- one thing that cannot be denied is the amount of avian deaths attributed to wind-power generators. An unintended consequence. And not just barn birds by the tens-of-thousands, but protected birds like bald eagles, gold eagles, falcons, migratory birds, etc.
- additionally, wind energy has been now proven to be inconsistent, and when back-up power generation has to occur, it becomes grossly inefficient to restart boiler processes, adding to delays and greater emissions than had they just been left "on"
(From Forbes here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...e/#4fdf9f2d1267)
Solar energy has it's pitfalls not in use, but production. Allow me to quote K. P. Green (irony of his name in regard to this topic a mere humorous coincidence ...)
"Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California-Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless. Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening."
(http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098)
For decades we're told we need to stop buring fossil fuels, and quit putting chemicals into the air. And now with this cloud-seed program, we're going to be ever-increasingly shoving chemicals into the air, and burning fossil fuels to achieve the effect. This just drips of irony, and begs for an unintended consequence to rise up.
This is a thread about the underlying onset of unintended consequences, and IMO, a large dollop of irony ...
StevieC's concern is valid, IMO.
Let's consider other recent programs where we tried to solve a problem, hastily. Or, more to the point, may have leapt into a program not so much in ignorance, but in arrogance, promoting one technology over another, because the detracting concerns were voiced prior to the wide-spread deployment of such efforts.
Wind energy has had limited success; depends upon whom you want to believe, but ...
- one thing that cannot be denied is the amount of avian deaths attributed to wind-power generators. An unintended consequence. And not just barn birds by the tens-of-thousands, but protected birds like bald eagles, gold eagles, falcons, migratory birds, etc.
- additionally, wind energy has been now proven to be inconsistent, and when back-up power generation has to occur, it becomes grossly inefficient to restart boiler processes, adding to delays and greater emissions than had they just been left "on"
(From Forbes here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...e/#4fdf9f2d1267)
Solar energy has it's pitfalls not in use, but production. Allow me to quote K. P. Green (irony of his name in regard to this topic a mere humorous coincidence ...)
"Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California-Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless. Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening."
(http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098)
For decades we're told we need to stop buring fossil fuels, and quit putting chemicals into the air. And now with this cloud-seed program, we're going to be ever-increasingly shoving chemicals into the air, and burning fossil fuels to achieve the effect. This just drips of irony, and begs for an unintended consequence to rise up.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm not really sure where you believe the "innocence" was lost in my first post; just what is it that "shall not be discussed" that I brought up???
You know full well...
"climate change" "fossil fuel", and yet you play all coy...
And then in the post that I'm replying to...
You are quite happy to be the harsh "stick to the rules" mod, and then quite happy to wheel your POV out as discussion, and then feign innocence.
Might be cute, but an abuse (again) of privilege (maybe check with the owner on where "climate change" sits in the list of accepted topics before replying, but you already know where that stands)
I'm not really sure where you believe the "innocence" was lost in my first post; just what is it that "shall not be discussed" that I brought up???
You know full well...
"climate change" "fossil fuel", and yet you play all coy...
And then in the post that I'm replying to...
You are quite happy to be the harsh "stick to the rules" mod, and then quite happy to wheel your POV out as discussion, and then feign innocence.
Might be cute, but an abuse (again) of privilege (maybe check with the owner on where "climate change" sits in the list of accepted topics before replying, but you already know where that stands)
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'm not really sure where you believe the "innocence" was lost in my first post; just what is it that "shall not be discussed" that I brought up???
This is a thread about the underlying onset of unintended consequences, and IMO, a large dollop of irony ...
StevieC's concern is valid, IMO.
Let's consider other recent programs where we tried to solve a problem, hastily. Or, more to the point, may have leapt into a program not so much in ignorance, but in arrogance, promoting one technology over another, because the detracting concerns were voiced prior to the wide-spread deployment of such efforts.
Wind energy has had limited success; depends upon whom you want to believe, but ...
- one thing that cannot be denied is the amount of avian deaths attributed to wind-power generators. An unintended consequence. And not just barn birds by the tens-of-thousands, but protected birds like bald eagles, gold eagles, falcons, migratory birds, etc.
- additionally, wind energy has been now proven to be inconsistent, and when back-up power generation has to occur, it becomes grossly inefficient to restart boiler processes, adding to delays and greater emissions than had they just been left "on"
(From Forbes here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...e/#4fdf9f2d1267)
Solar energy has it's pitfalls not in use, but production. Allow me to quote K. P. Green (irony of his name in regard to this topic a mere humorous coincidence ...)
"Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California-Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless. Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening."
(http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098)
For decades we're told we need to stop buring fossil fuels, and quit putting chemicals into the air. And now with this cloud-seed program, we're going to be ever-increasingly shoving chemicals into the air, and burning fossil fuels to achieve the effect. This just drips of irony, and begs for an unintended consequence to rise up.
Bear in mind that this quote (unless "accidentally edited later", as sometimes happens when engaging with DNewton) was prior to my last post.
Calling into question the ROI/ROE, and environmental soundness on alternate technologies is and has always been labelled "P", borders on R, and has the stated rule of topics that shall not be discussed.
Calling into question policy for/against those technologies, or the CO2 impact is ALWAYS moderated as a violation of "P", along with that topic that shall not be discussed.
As to innocence...the OP posted legitimately about people intentionally trying to make rain...which is NOT that topic that shall not be discussed.
I'm not really sure where you believe the "innocence" was lost in my first post; just what is it that "shall not be discussed" that I brought up???
This is a thread about the underlying onset of unintended consequences, and IMO, a large dollop of irony ...
StevieC's concern is valid, IMO.
Let's consider other recent programs where we tried to solve a problem, hastily. Or, more to the point, may have leapt into a program not so much in ignorance, but in arrogance, promoting one technology over another, because the detracting concerns were voiced prior to the wide-spread deployment of such efforts.
Wind energy has had limited success; depends upon whom you want to believe, but ...
- one thing that cannot be denied is the amount of avian deaths attributed to wind-power generators. An unintended consequence. And not just barn birds by the tens-of-thousands, but protected birds like bald eagles, gold eagles, falcons, migratory birds, etc.
- additionally, wind energy has been now proven to be inconsistent, and when back-up power generation has to occur, it becomes grossly inefficient to restart boiler processes, adding to delays and greater emissions than had they just been left "on"
(From Forbes here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon...e/#4fdf9f2d1267)
Solar energy has it's pitfalls not in use, but production. Allow me to quote K. P. Green (irony of his name in regard to this topic a mere humorous coincidence ...)
"Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California-Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless. Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening."
(http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098)
For decades we're told we need to stop buring fossil fuels, and quit putting chemicals into the air. And now with this cloud-seed program, we're going to be ever-increasingly shoving chemicals into the air, and burning fossil fuels to achieve the effect. This just drips of irony, and begs for an unintended consequence to rise up.
Bear in mind that this quote (unless "accidentally edited later", as sometimes happens when engaging with DNewton) was prior to my last post.
Calling into question the ROI/ROE, and environmental soundness on alternate technologies is and has always been labelled "P", borders on R, and has the stated rule of topics that shall not be discussed.
Calling into question policy for/against those technologies, or the CO2 impact is ALWAYS moderated as a violation of "P", along with that topic that shall not be discussed.
As to innocence...the OP posted legitimately about people intentionally trying to make rain...which is NOT that topic that shall not be discussed.
dnewton3
Staff member
The thread is about unintended consequences and irony. I have given examples of such. StevieC's concern is that the technology exhibited in the cloud-seed program will cause an undesirable condition, either unforeseen (ignorance), or known but discounted (arrogance).
Sadly, your point is well made. It won't be long before some member just cannot help him/herself and has to drag politics into the mix. THAT is what is taboo. But this thread has not yet lost it's "innocence"; I would disagree with you there. But given time, it certainly will.
Sadly, your point is well made. It won't be long before some member just cannot help him/herself and has to drag politics into the mix. THAT is what is taboo. But this thread has not yet lost it's "innocence"; I would disagree with you there. But given time, it certainly will.
I was only trying to get across that I don't think we should be mucking with nature and certainly not contributing to greenhouse gases and air pollution for the sake of up to 15% more rain as the documentary claims is possible. We don't know the long term effects and doing more harm over the long term for a short term gain is just stupid in my opinion.
I posted the PBS documentary because it was interesting technology and I was wondering how others felt about it in comparison to how I did with regards to its Pros/Cons.
I posted the PBS documentary because it was interesting technology and I was wondering how others felt about it in comparison to how I did with regards to its Pros/Cons.
Last edited:
One horrible idea after another. They're not going to stop messing with the planet until the results resemble one of those bad post-apocalyptic movies.
What about the effect on areas that don't need 15% more rain? We've had more rain during our season than I can remember in recent times. What if we don't want 15% more rain just because a nearby area does?
What if the opposite is true, and "making" more rain in one area results in drought in another?
What about the effect on areas that don't need 15% more rain? We've had more rain during our season than I can remember in recent times. What if we don't want 15% more rain just because a nearby area does?
What if the opposite is true, and "making" more rain in one area results in drought in another?
What chemicals are in the seeding agent...exactly ?
Originally Posted By: Smokescreen
What chemicals are in the seeding agent...exactly ?
The most basic formula used in the type of generators shown in the video is silver iodide in acetone. Sodium iodide is sometimes added in various amounts to optimize the crystal formation under various conditions. Paradichlorobenzene is sometimes added in small amounts to make the AgI crystals slightly hygroscopic.
Ed
What chemicals are in the seeding agent...exactly ?
The most basic formula used in the type of generators shown in the video is silver iodide in acetone. Sodium iodide is sometimes added in various amounts to optimize the crystal formation under various conditions. Paradichlorobenzene is sometimes added in small amounts to make the AgI crystals slightly hygroscopic.
Ed
Might as well throw taxpayers' $$$ down a rathole.
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
Might as well throw taxpayers' $$$ down a rathole.
The vast majority of the cost of operating a cloud seeding program is borne by the entities receiving direct benefit of the extra water produced. Irrigation districts and municipalities being two of the most common contributors. Sure some of that money, especially from municipalities was local tax money. The benefit to the residents was that they got water when they opened their taps or payed lower water bills.
The entire operation was ROI based. If the value was not there to those contributing, they would cut or drop funding completely. While some years were tight, overall the entities have seen enough ROI to continue the program(s).
Ed
Might as well throw taxpayers' $$$ down a rathole.
The vast majority of the cost of operating a cloud seeding program is borne by the entities receiving direct benefit of the extra water produced. Irrigation districts and municipalities being two of the most common contributors. Sure some of that money, especially from municipalities was local tax money. The benefit to the residents was that they got water when they opened their taps or payed lower water bills.
The entire operation was ROI based. If the value was not there to those contributing, they would cut or drop funding completely. While some years were tight, overall the entities have seen enough ROI to continue the program(s).
Ed
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Cloud seeding for rain has been done for decades upon decades.
Snowy Hydro have been doing it to improve yield, now the snow resorts do it.
For those who can't make a distinction, it's local weather, not climate.
You make valid points. I think my concern is based upon a few objections that do relate to your points, though. Not that you're wrong; 'cuz you're not.
When it comes to "local" weather generation, there are two concerns I would have; size and available air moisture:
1) how big is "local" in terms of this cloud-seed program?
We're talking about the plains of WY, (and probably we could include MT, SD, ND, NE, and down into TX and OK). This isn't the same as trying to put some fluffy white snow on a ski trail. The point to this cloud-seed program is to try to affect a large enough area so as to avert drought in hyper-sensitive areas with prolonged shortages. One small "local" shower isn't the ultimate goal here. The (presumed) goal is to generate enough precipitation to affect enough area so as to reduce a drought condition. We're not talking about a few acres, or even a few hundred acres. The only way to make this effective (real effect that can increase natural/native grass growth for herds, and run-off for water use) is to make this program reach LARGE areas. While you're right about snow-seeding in local ski-resorts, that's not the ultimate goal of this cloud-seed program. I would also question the accuracy of a cloud-seed program; how close can they hit a "target" area? With snow-seeding, it's just a matter of "fogging" the chemicals into the local air currents near ground level. This cloud-seed program would have to reach much higher than that to get the effect they seek. Snow-seeding puts both the chemical AND moisture into cold air, so that there's not really anything to do but condense the supplied moisture. Certainly it's not 100% supplied; some does come from the air itself. But this local effect at a ski-trail does not really have a large impact in terms of square miles; it's only putting down channels of snow in easily defined paths. Cloud-seeding, to be effective, to reduce drought and create a quantify of run-off beneficial from more than a few hours, must affect hundreds of square miles. Otherwise, it's moot.
2) Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
While the "seeding" may be "local" (defined as large or small, depending upon the topic), the cloud-seeding (not snow effect, but rain in the plains) has to take moisture from the atmosphere and deposit it in a desired location. Cloud-seeding does not CREATE moisture; it only encourages it to fall where the "local" seeding occurs. Therefore, as that front of moisture passes into an area, they can promote the moisture to condense around these AgI (silver iodide) molecules; they grow and drop. But if the moisture particles drop at/near the seeding area, then they are taken away from the available moisture mass that is proceeding with the air front of wind travel across the continent. It's not really any different than a creek or river. If you divert some of the flow to a desired area, the resulting flow downstream is less. Taking moisture from an air-mass to dump it on Joe's farm, kind of screws Bill's farm 100 or 1000 miles away .... And the plains are a BIG place, that extends from the upper central USA area, north up into Canada. Remember that snow-seeding provides both the seed molecule (AgI) AND ALSO some of the moisture. But the point of cloud-seeding is to not supply any moisture, but take it from the atmosphere. Cloud-seeding does not create mass, in the world of actual physics. It only converts mass from vapor to liquid, so that it will fall. Hence, if it falls here, it's no longer available to fall over there ..... This does not reduce drought; it only moves the location of drought.
My points are conjoined in this concept concern:
If you run a cloud-seed program LARGE enough to cover a LARGE area, you do two things:
1) run a LARGE amount of chemicals and fossil-fuel CO into the air (something we're told is a no-no if it comes from a vehicle)
2) steal from one area for the benefit of another, in an area so large that it's pretty darn dry EVERYWHERE most ALL the time
- One wind-mill or a small wind-farm does not really affect the back-up power CO production or kill a lot of protected birds, but LARGE farms across multiple states have shown that the effect does not pay the dividend they once believed regarding CO reduction, and kills a LOT of birds as a side effect.
- One small photo-panel on a few desk calculators, or used on an RV rooftop to charge a deep cycle battery isn't going to kill anyone, but when you now have solar cells on all manner of small hand-held devices, and powering remote signs along every road route, and have huge solar farms in every town, city, rural area, and put them on home roof-tops, you end up having to produce enough solar cells that the residual outputs (as shown earlier) have far reaching effects that now make a concern far larger than the CO we're trying to avoid.
Your point is valid; a small cloud-seed program run as a trials won't hurt much. Small snow-seeding does not greatly blur the lines of "acceptable". But to be effective in the great plains of North America, the cloud-seed program would have to be HUGE, and the required CO burned and AgI dumped would exceed any yet-conceived effects we'd so far discuss. Again - irony sets in. The age-old adage used to be that the "solution to pollution is dilution". What happens when this cloud-seed program goes state wide or consumes an entire eco-region?
Again - the Law of Unintended Consequences is knocking on the door of this program. You cannot equate the effects of "local" snow generation to eco-regional side effects. That is EXACTLY what happened with wind-power and solar-power. Small programs won't show side effects until the program goes mainstream.
Cloud seeding for rain has been done for decades upon decades.
Snowy Hydro have been doing it to improve yield, now the snow resorts do it.
For those who can't make a distinction, it's local weather, not climate.
You make valid points. I think my concern is based upon a few objections that do relate to your points, though. Not that you're wrong; 'cuz you're not.
When it comes to "local" weather generation, there are two concerns I would have; size and available air moisture:
1) how big is "local" in terms of this cloud-seed program?
We're talking about the plains of WY, (and probably we could include MT, SD, ND, NE, and down into TX and OK). This isn't the same as trying to put some fluffy white snow on a ski trail. The point to this cloud-seed program is to try to affect a large enough area so as to avert drought in hyper-sensitive areas with prolonged shortages. One small "local" shower isn't the ultimate goal here. The (presumed) goal is to generate enough precipitation to affect enough area so as to reduce a drought condition. We're not talking about a few acres, or even a few hundred acres. The only way to make this effective (real effect that can increase natural/native grass growth for herds, and run-off for water use) is to make this program reach LARGE areas. While you're right about snow-seeding in local ski-resorts, that's not the ultimate goal of this cloud-seed program. I would also question the accuracy of a cloud-seed program; how close can they hit a "target" area? With snow-seeding, it's just a matter of "fogging" the chemicals into the local air currents near ground level. This cloud-seed program would have to reach much higher than that to get the effect they seek. Snow-seeding puts both the chemical AND moisture into cold air, so that there's not really anything to do but condense the supplied moisture. Certainly it's not 100% supplied; some does come from the air itself. But this local effect at a ski-trail does not really have a large impact in terms of square miles; it's only putting down channels of snow in easily defined paths. Cloud-seeding, to be effective, to reduce drought and create a quantify of run-off beneficial from more than a few hours, must affect hundreds of square miles. Otherwise, it's moot.
2) Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
While the "seeding" may be "local" (defined as large or small, depending upon the topic), the cloud-seeding (not snow effect, but rain in the plains) has to take moisture from the atmosphere and deposit it in a desired location. Cloud-seeding does not CREATE moisture; it only encourages it to fall where the "local" seeding occurs. Therefore, as that front of moisture passes into an area, they can promote the moisture to condense around these AgI (silver iodide) molecules; they grow and drop. But if the moisture particles drop at/near the seeding area, then they are taken away from the available moisture mass that is proceeding with the air front of wind travel across the continent. It's not really any different than a creek or river. If you divert some of the flow to a desired area, the resulting flow downstream is less. Taking moisture from an air-mass to dump it on Joe's farm, kind of screws Bill's farm 100 or 1000 miles away .... And the plains are a BIG place, that extends from the upper central USA area, north up into Canada. Remember that snow-seeding provides both the seed molecule (AgI) AND ALSO some of the moisture. But the point of cloud-seeding is to not supply any moisture, but take it from the atmosphere. Cloud-seeding does not create mass, in the world of actual physics. It only converts mass from vapor to liquid, so that it will fall. Hence, if it falls here, it's no longer available to fall over there ..... This does not reduce drought; it only moves the location of drought.
My points are conjoined in this concept concern:
If you run a cloud-seed program LARGE enough to cover a LARGE area, you do two things:
1) run a LARGE amount of chemicals and fossil-fuel CO into the air (something we're told is a no-no if it comes from a vehicle)
2) steal from one area for the benefit of another, in an area so large that it's pretty darn dry EVERYWHERE most ALL the time
- One wind-mill or a small wind-farm does not really affect the back-up power CO production or kill a lot of protected birds, but LARGE farms across multiple states have shown that the effect does not pay the dividend they once believed regarding CO reduction, and kills a LOT of birds as a side effect.
- One small photo-panel on a few desk calculators, or used on an RV rooftop to charge a deep cycle battery isn't going to kill anyone, but when you now have solar cells on all manner of small hand-held devices, and powering remote signs along every road route, and have huge solar farms in every town, city, rural area, and put them on home roof-tops, you end up having to produce enough solar cells that the residual outputs (as shown earlier) have far reaching effects that now make a concern far larger than the CO we're trying to avoid.
Your point is valid; a small cloud-seed program run as a trials won't hurt much. Small snow-seeding does not greatly blur the lines of "acceptable". But to be effective in the great plains of North America, the cloud-seed program would have to be HUGE, and the required CO burned and AgI dumped would exceed any yet-conceived effects we'd so far discuss. Again - irony sets in. The age-old adage used to be that the "solution to pollution is dilution". What happens when this cloud-seed program goes state wide or consumes an entire eco-region?
Again - the Law of Unintended Consequences is knocking on the door of this program. You cannot equate the effects of "local" snow generation to eco-regional side effects. That is EXACTLY what happened with wind-power and solar-power. Small programs won't show side effects until the program goes mainstream.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
When it comes to "local" weather generation, there are two concerns I would have; size and available air moisture:
1) how big is "local" in terms of this cloud-seed program?
We're talking about the plains of WY, (and probably we could include MT, SD, ND, NE, and down into TX and OK). This isn't the same as trying to put some fluffy white snow on a ski trail. The point to this cloud-seed program is to try to affect a large enough area so as to avert drought in hyper-sensitive areas with prolonged shortages.
Whoa, hold your horses there Dave. Nobody is talking about the plains of anywhere. The generator shown in the video may look like it is in the plains, but is sited in the foothills to target a large mountain range down wind. Ground based seeding is strictly an orographic(mountain) phenomenon. It relies on the flow of air up the mountain to carry the AgI to the proper altitude. It also only works effectively with orographic precipitation. The moisture in the low level air mass must condense and cool as the air rises. Only once the moisture droplets are supercooled can they freeze out as snow on the AgI crystals.
The typical target areas are specific drainage basins that drain to where people are willing to pay for the water. The point is to increase high altitude snowpack in these areas so that there is storage for use over the summer. Just making it snow more everywhere does not give you your desired ROI. You've got specific people paying for water to be delivered to a specific place.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I would also question the accuracy of a cloud-seed program; how close can they hit a "target" area? Cloud-seeding, to be effective, to reduce drought and create a quantify of run-off beneficial from more than a few hours, must affect hundreds of square miles. Otherwise, it's moot.
The targeting is highly accurate and is a mature science. The generator locations are specifically chosen for know wind patterns and other meteorological parameters. No that does not mean they are 100%, as nature often throws a curve ball.
They just don't seed any old storm either. Everything has to be right before they will attempt to seed a storm. The meteorologists start looking at storm up to 10 days ahead, watch it closely starting at 7 days out and intensely from 3 days out. Wind speeds and directions must be right. High altitude winds must be acceptable. The moisture content of the air mass must be correct. The temperature profile must be right. Cloud thicknesses, expected duration of the storm, and a whole host of other conditions must be met before the seeding generators are started. Remember cloud seeding is a ROI based operation. Nobody gets paid for firing blanks.
There is also a list of times they won't seed a storm even if it is a good candidate. The project in the Sierras that I was a part of for a time does not seed if there is an existing avalanche danger, the storm would hit during holiday travel times, there was a danger of flooding due to high snow levels or storm timing. There are also snowpack levels above normal what would halt seeding, typically 140%-150% on specific dates. There are probably more reasons, but that gives everyone an idea of how a program is run.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
2) Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
While the "seeding" may be "local" (defined as large or small, depending upon the topic), the cloud-seeding (not snow effect, but rain in the plains) has to take moisture from the atmosphere and deposit it in a desired location. Cloud-seeding does not CREATE moisture; it only encourages it to fall where the "local" seeding occurs. Therefore, as that front of moisture passes into an area, they can promote the moisture to condense around these AgI (silver iodide) molecules; they grow and drop. But if the moisture particles drop at/near the seeding area, then they are taken away from the available moisture mass that is proceeding with the air front of wind travel across the continent. It's not really any different than a creek or river. If you divert some of the flow to a desired area, the resulting flow downstream is less. Taking moisture from an air-mass to dump it on Joe's farm, kind of screws Bill's farm 100 or 1000 miles away .... And the plains are a BIG place, that extends from the upper central USA area, north up into Canada. Remember that snow-seeding provides both the seed molecule (AgI) AND ALSO some of the moisture. But the point of cloud-seeding is to not supply any moisture, but take it from the atmosphere. Cloud-seeding does not create mass, in the world of actual physics. It only converts mass from vapor to liquid, so that it will fall. Hence, if it falls here, it's no longer available to fall over there ..... This does not reduce drought; it only moves the location of drought.
Over 50 years of research show that that isn't the way it works. An effect can sometimes be seen 50-100 miles down range from the target area, but that is in the form of slightly increased precipitation. Outside of that influence, precipitation is normal.
A mountain storm typically drops 10% of the moisture in an air mass. A 10% seeding efficiency results in a 1% drop in storm water content only in the small area effected by the generators. As the air mass moves down the mountain it is compressed and heated and picks up moisture from the atmosphere back to equilibrium for the storm temperatures. The small effect of the seeding is completely overwhelmed by natural forces. Storms are self regenerating. That's why a winter storm coming in from the Pacific Ocean can wreak havoc clear across the nation.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Again - the Law of Unintended Consequences is knocking on the door of this program. You cannot equate the effects of "local" snow generation to eco-regional side effects. That is EXACTLY what happened with wind-power and solar-power. Small programs won't show side effects until the program goes mainstream.
Seeding is pretty much mainstream now. It's been going on for 70 years and current "large" programs have been in place for 40-50 years. Largely, every place that has enough people willing to pay the price and are located where seeding could benefit is being seeded now. There will be no movement to seed the plains as mentioned above, it doesn't work.
Propane usage is small. Those tanks contain more than enough for the entire season. There's no getting a propane truck to most generators after the first snow fall. A back of the envelope calculation has me guessing that a 10 generator network uses less propane that two households(3000 gallons yearly average). I won't argue the point that less its better.
Concerning the toxicity of AgI, samples collected from 40-50 year target areas show Ag levels 100-1000X below toxic levels to higher plants and animals. Ag is a bacteriostatic, and I don't think there has been enough research on the long term effect on soil bacteria, algae, and such for me to call it 100% safe. Again, I won't argue that no extra Ag in these environments might not be better.
Cloud seeding has a pretty well established low environmental risk. There are bigger fish to fry if you want to have a real impact. Take BBQs for instance. Talk about the use of propane and nasty chemicals spewed into the air. Yes, Burger King is a major source of air pollution in the L.A. Basin. Go ahead and start a campaign against BBQing. I dare you.
Ed
When it comes to "local" weather generation, there are two concerns I would have; size and available air moisture:
1) how big is "local" in terms of this cloud-seed program?
We're talking about the plains of WY, (and probably we could include MT, SD, ND, NE, and down into TX and OK). This isn't the same as trying to put some fluffy white snow on a ski trail. The point to this cloud-seed program is to try to affect a large enough area so as to avert drought in hyper-sensitive areas with prolonged shortages.
Whoa, hold your horses there Dave. Nobody is talking about the plains of anywhere. The generator shown in the video may look like it is in the plains, but is sited in the foothills to target a large mountain range down wind. Ground based seeding is strictly an orographic(mountain) phenomenon. It relies on the flow of air up the mountain to carry the AgI to the proper altitude. It also only works effectively with orographic precipitation. The moisture in the low level air mass must condense and cool as the air rises. Only once the moisture droplets are supercooled can they freeze out as snow on the AgI crystals.
The typical target areas are specific drainage basins that drain to where people are willing to pay for the water. The point is to increase high altitude snowpack in these areas so that there is storage for use over the summer. Just making it snow more everywhere does not give you your desired ROI. You've got specific people paying for water to be delivered to a specific place.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I would also question the accuracy of a cloud-seed program; how close can they hit a "target" area? Cloud-seeding, to be effective, to reduce drought and create a quantify of run-off beneficial from more than a few hours, must affect hundreds of square miles. Otherwise, it's moot.
The targeting is highly accurate and is a mature science. The generator locations are specifically chosen for know wind patterns and other meteorological parameters. No that does not mean they are 100%, as nature often throws a curve ball.
They just don't seed any old storm either. Everything has to be right before they will attempt to seed a storm. The meteorologists start looking at storm up to 10 days ahead, watch it closely starting at 7 days out and intensely from 3 days out. Wind speeds and directions must be right. High altitude winds must be acceptable. The moisture content of the air mass must be correct. The temperature profile must be right. Cloud thicknesses, expected duration of the storm, and a whole host of other conditions must be met before the seeding generators are started. Remember cloud seeding is a ROI based operation. Nobody gets paid for firing blanks.
There is also a list of times they won't seed a storm even if it is a good candidate. The project in the Sierras that I was a part of for a time does not seed if there is an existing avalanche danger, the storm would hit during holiday travel times, there was a danger of flooding due to high snow levels or storm timing. There are also snowpack levels above normal what would halt seeding, typically 140%-150% on specific dates. There are probably more reasons, but that gives everyone an idea of how a program is run.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
2) Robbing Peter to pay Paul?
While the "seeding" may be "local" (defined as large or small, depending upon the topic), the cloud-seeding (not snow effect, but rain in the plains) has to take moisture from the atmosphere and deposit it in a desired location. Cloud-seeding does not CREATE moisture; it only encourages it to fall where the "local" seeding occurs. Therefore, as that front of moisture passes into an area, they can promote the moisture to condense around these AgI (silver iodide) molecules; they grow and drop. But if the moisture particles drop at/near the seeding area, then they are taken away from the available moisture mass that is proceeding with the air front of wind travel across the continent. It's not really any different than a creek or river. If you divert some of the flow to a desired area, the resulting flow downstream is less. Taking moisture from an air-mass to dump it on Joe's farm, kind of screws Bill's farm 100 or 1000 miles away .... And the plains are a BIG place, that extends from the upper central USA area, north up into Canada. Remember that snow-seeding provides both the seed molecule (AgI) AND ALSO some of the moisture. But the point of cloud-seeding is to not supply any moisture, but take it from the atmosphere. Cloud-seeding does not create mass, in the world of actual physics. It only converts mass from vapor to liquid, so that it will fall. Hence, if it falls here, it's no longer available to fall over there ..... This does not reduce drought; it only moves the location of drought.
Over 50 years of research show that that isn't the way it works. An effect can sometimes be seen 50-100 miles down range from the target area, but that is in the form of slightly increased precipitation. Outside of that influence, precipitation is normal.
A mountain storm typically drops 10% of the moisture in an air mass. A 10% seeding efficiency results in a 1% drop in storm water content only in the small area effected by the generators. As the air mass moves down the mountain it is compressed and heated and picks up moisture from the atmosphere back to equilibrium for the storm temperatures. The small effect of the seeding is completely overwhelmed by natural forces. Storms are self regenerating. That's why a winter storm coming in from the Pacific Ocean can wreak havoc clear across the nation.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Again - the Law of Unintended Consequences is knocking on the door of this program. You cannot equate the effects of "local" snow generation to eco-regional side effects. That is EXACTLY what happened with wind-power and solar-power. Small programs won't show side effects until the program goes mainstream.
Seeding is pretty much mainstream now. It's been going on for 70 years and current "large" programs have been in place for 40-50 years. Largely, every place that has enough people willing to pay the price and are located where seeding could benefit is being seeded now. There will be no movement to seed the plains as mentioned above, it doesn't work.
Propane usage is small. Those tanks contain more than enough for the entire season. There's no getting a propane truck to most generators after the first snow fall. A back of the envelope calculation has me guessing that a 10 generator network uses less propane that two households(3000 gallons yearly average). I won't argue the point that less its better.
Concerning the toxicity of AgI, samples collected from 40-50 year target areas show Ag levels 100-1000X below toxic levels to higher plants and animals. Ag is a bacteriostatic, and I don't think there has been enough research on the long term effect on soil bacteria, algae, and such for me to call it 100% safe. Again, I won't argue that no extra Ag in these environments might not be better.
Cloud seeding has a pretty well established low environmental risk. There are bigger fish to fry if you want to have a real impact. Take BBQs for instance. Talk about the use of propane and nasty chemicals spewed into the air. Yes, Burger King is a major source of air pollution in the L.A. Basin. Go ahead and start a campaign against BBQing. I dare you.
Ed
- Status
Similar threads
