China Is Building a Rain-Making System Three Times as Big as Spain • Hacker News Board

Re: China Is Building a Rain-Making System Three Times as Big as Spain

#151

Post by volgo » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 6:34 AM UTC

panic wrote: post #22

Googling around a bit, there seems to be a long history of weather-modification news coming out of China. In 2008, according to the Beijing Weather Modification Office, China used rockets to make sure the Olympic opening ceremony was rain-free: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/how-beijing-use... In 2013, China was producing "55 billion tons of artificial rain a year" according to the China Meteorological…

Sounds like your ego is talking. This is called confirmation bias. When you firmly believe in something, you'll find the search results for it.

Name any "initiative" and I'll find you at least 10 articles on it

Re: China Is Building a Rain-Making System Three Times as Big as Spain

#152

Post by titzer » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 1:48 PM UTC

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg wrote: post #145

titzer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to see how moisture can stay in the air for months at a time, but I am not a climate scientist, so who knows.

Air contains water. The amount it contains is defined by pressure, temperature and availability.

I dunno. Can it carry 3 months worth of rain at once?

Re: China Is Building a Rain-Making System Three Times as Big as Spain

#153

Post by mac01021 » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 5:23 PM UTC

ggm wrote: post #12

Excluding systems which put water into the air, Atmospheric water is a zero sum game AFAIK so if this causes rain to fall where the Chinese want it, somebody else misses out. Freshwater from high mountains in the India/China region is a hot topic. They're running out of glaciers.

I'm not the best at reading meteorological maps but, if I understand this jet stream forecast right, it looks like it's Beijing and South Korea that are going to miss out.

http://www.weatherstreet.com/international/asia-10-day-forec...

Re: China Is Building a Rain-Making System Three Times as Big as Spain

#154

Post by slededit » Sun, Apr 01, 2018, 1:41 AM UTC

Dangeranger wrote: post #117

wnevets wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

who else is shooting silver iodide into the sky?

Well the United States did from 1962-1983.[0] Unfortunately humans learn best from negative consequences, rather than from historical observation. Most bad things have already been tried before. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Stormfury

Doesn't sound like there were any major negative consequences - just that it was ineffective at stopping hurricanes and cyclones.

Re: China Is Building a Rain-Making System Three Times as Big as Spain

#155

Post by titzer » Sun, Apr 01, 2018, 12:53 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #136

titzer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am not reframing. I'm sorry for your limited experience, but I have met far too many conservatives that all but spell it out. I used to be one and traveled in those circles. Look at people's actions. Conservatives in Congress and the WH cut the EPA, they cut Climate Science budgets, and not only do they offer all-out denial, they often just flat out state that a warmer planet would be or could be a good thing.…

Anecdote doesn't make data, otherwise my personal experience of never having once met a conservative that doesn't care about clean air and water would cancel out your experience. Straw men and ad hominem don't make up for actual data.

I am not certain what model you use for reasoning, but if person A says "I never saw X" and person B says "I saw X on occasions Y, Z, and W", then they don't "cancel each other out," unless someone is lying. Literally the entire rest of my comment was not about what I thought I saw, but what people have actually done. E.g. I mentioned what conservatives in Congress have actually done (e.g. latest https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...) and suddenly we are arguing about anecdotes and I'm accused of offering strawmen. Uh, no.