A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
outtherecolorado.com
A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#2Now I know how I got argyrosis.
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#3Now I know how I got argyrosis.
People doing this cloud seeding should be forced, alongside with their children, to live in these areas.
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#4I work with CWCB and have never heard of hail cannons applied. I believe a few car dealerships have a sonic device for hail suppression, but I don’t know if it’s the old-school conic acetylene projector.
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#5Any negative effects of cloud seeding for the water produced or the environment?
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#6I have no opinion about weather modification but I live in CO and have a bunch of new age and wook friends.
I've had a conversation several times where the other interlocutor has used these programs have been used to justify a belief in "chem trails".
It's a really bad conversational cycle.
me: "Chemtrails aren't real"
wook: "yeah but they are doing weather modification"
me: "but a) it's not a consipracy because they publish explicitly what they are doing and b) weather modification programs aren't 'chemtrails'"
wook: "yeah but they are doing weather modification"
I love my friends, but yeesh.
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#7> "it's tricky to prove that a weather result would or would not have happened if the cloud seeding effort didn't take place."
It's notable that weather modification programs of the 1950s were iniated before the discovery of sensitive dependence on initial conditions (popularly known as 'chaos') in weather systems, by Edward Lorenz. His 1995 book, "The Essence of Chaos" is still the best overview of the subject:
https://uwapress.uw.edu/book/9780295975146/the-essence-of-ch...
The 2010 book by JR Fleming, "Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control" is a good review of failed weather modification schemes in the past:
https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1028
The problem is kind of like that of tossing pebbles down a mountainside - regardless of whether there's an avalanche, you can't tell if the avalanche would have happened anyway, or if the 100th pebble launched triggered the avalanche. Putting enough energy into the system to guarantee a result of some kind (a stick of dynamite for the avalanche analogy) is prohibitive since weather systems tend to contain a gigantic amount of energy.
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#8I work with CWCB and have never heard of hail cannons applied. I believe a few car dealerships have a sonic device for hail suppression, but I don’t know if it’s the old-school conic acetylene projector.
I don't think there's any scientific basis for the use of hail cannons (by any name). The explanation that the sound waves "disrupt the formation of hailstones" is a post-hoc justification; the practice had existed for hundreds of years, long before anyone had any theories about how it might work.
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#9I have no opinion about weather modification but I live in CO and have a bunch of new age and wook friends. I've had a conversation several times where the other interlocutor has used these programs have been used to justify a belief in "chem trails". It's a really bad conversational cycle. me: "Chemtrails aren't real" wook: "yeah but they are doing weather modification" me: "but a) it's not a consipracy because they…
You have friends from Kashyyyk?
Re: A breakdown of Colorado's 'weather modification' program
#10I have no opinion about weather modification but I live in CO and have a bunch of new age and wook friends. I've had a conversation several times where the other interlocutor has used these programs have been used to justify a belief in "chem trails". It's a really bad conversational cycle. me: "Chemtrails aren't real" wook: "yeah but they are doing weather modification" me: "but a) it's not a consipracy because they…
> me: "but a) it's not a consipracy because they publish explicitly what they are doing and
Seems like a bad argument. They could simply be lieing, withholding information. And we should expect precisely that if there was a conspiracy.