Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Feasibility of climate- or weather-manipulation
chief
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 630
Registered: 19-7-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-8-2010 at 04:19
Feasibility of climate- or weather-manipulation


Since decades man has influenced wheather, on the small scale:
==> These days even some farmers are equipped with small rocketry for making away with cetrain types of ice-rain, that could ruin a crop ...

Classically the ingredient was silver-iodide ...
==> The mechanism, roughly spoken, ist to insert nucleation-seeds into the clouds which give the water opportunity enough to condense ... giving rain ...

The mentioned ice-rain (hail), with larger grains, will happen if the nucleation-conditions in the atmosphere prefer the mass-growth of relatively few grains ...
==> This gets prevented by artificially inserting the nano-Silver-iodide into the cloud: Many smaller grains grow, of undangerous size ... ... thereby no dangerous hail can come down ...

======================
That far it's the technology of maybe the 1960s or 1970s ...

Now: What is possible today ? Who has an idea about what is done ?

What could be done:
==> The silver-iodide could be activated by neutron-bombardment (thermal neutrons, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scidemos/QuantumRelativity/Neutr... ), giving short-lived isotopes ... : This would immensely enhance the effectiveness, since the radioactivity would produce far more nucleation-seeds ... principally like in a "cloud chamber" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

Maybe these days cheaper substances are available (silver around 500 €/kg), that could be sprayed from airplanes, 1 or 2 days in advance ... giving rain or dryness over an extended area ... ?

Since air-streams may be compared to eg. the marine gulf-stream, where something happening in the gulf of mexico can influence eg. the entirety of northern europe ...
==> ... maybe at certain points in the air-space there could be induced nucleation-seedin substances ... giving rain at some distance upstream ... and dryness at a greater distance upstrem ??

If such were possible, than it could be used to strategically influence the climate in regions ... ...

Anyone having any constructive/interesting ideas about that ?
==> What can be done ?
==> What might be actually taking place ?

[Edited on 4-8-2010 by chief]

[Edited on 4-8-2010 by chief]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
franklyn
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3026
Registered: 30-5-2006
Location: Da Big Apple
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-1-2013 at 13:45


HAARP is the only thing which comes to mind

www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=19592

www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=3201


_____________________________________________


China the world's biggest CO2 producer is coldest in 28 years
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9782973/China-...

www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2013/jan/08/cold-weather-in...

Of course you can argue global warming , if you only count the times
when it is hotter and ignore the times when it is not.

The Global warming solution in two posts
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=10033#pid1211...
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=10033#pid1220...


Come to think of it , the only thing really green about green ventures is the graft.
www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-02/why-did-train-carrying-bio...
" A cargo train filled with biofuels crossed the border between the US and Canada
24 times between the 15th of June and the 28th of June 2010; not once did it
unload its cargo, yet it still earned millions of dollars."
" Each time the loaded train crossed the border the cargo earned its owner a
certain amount of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which were awarded
by the US EPA."
"12 million RINs from the 24 trips, worth between 50 cents and $1 each, which
they can then sell on to oil companies that haven’t met the EPA’s renewable fuel
requirements."


Renewable fuels , a never ending source of government guaranteed revenue.
www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/28/us-usa-defense-biofuels-i...
Sure , why gas up the navy in Venezuela or the Middle East when you can
manufacture fuel instead at $ 26 to $ 59 a gallon. What a racket , you or I
would be shown the door before ever allowed to bid on that contract.
No mention of how much additional CO2 it took to make it.


www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-...
" initial studies predict that jet fuel from seawater would
cost in the range of $3 to $6 per gallon to produce.
"
Take it from me , that is absolute bullshit.


If it were up to me
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=11102#pid1351...

.

[Edited on 8-1-2013 by franklyn]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
mayko
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1137
Registered: 17-1-2013
Location: Carrboro, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: anomalous (Euclid class)

[*] posted on 17-1-2013 at 22:53


Quote: Originally posted by franklyn  


China the world's biggest CO2 producer is coldest in 28 years
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9782973/China-...


CO2 is a well-mixed gas; its thermal effects are global, not local, so there is no inherent connection between local emissions and temperature trends. In any case, you've only identified a temperature event, not a trend.

Quote:

Of course you can argue global warming , if you only count the times
when it is hotter and ignore the times when it is not.


Huh?

Click around here for a bit; what exactly are you saying?
Tropospheric Temperature Time Series

Quote:

The Global warming solution in two posts
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=10033#pid1211...
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=10033#pid1220...


.... sulfate aerosol geoengineering is what you're proposing?

That's not a direction you really want to go, for many reasons. Among them: Acid deposition and increased global dimming (with possible effects on plant productivity). The failure to address ocean acidification. The messy legal, ethical, and political issues involved in performing a second massive geochemical experiment on top of the first, swallowing a spider to catch a fly. The loss of blue skies (but nicer sunsets).

But most terrifying to me is that, in spite of the poorly understood long-term effects of such geoengineering, starting it would be a commitment: if you stop, for any reason, radiative forcing snaps back in *years*, and CO2 has presumably been building up in the meantime. Not pretty.

A few other things: 'Chemtrail' advocates are generally quite hostile to climatologists (witness "What in the world are they spraying?"), who they see as complicit in the poisoning of the world. Also, the significance of the 9/11 study is debatable at best.
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User

  Go To Top