UK Team to Study Rainmaking Machines

RobertB-DC writes "The BBC reports that a Edinburgh University team has received a grant to research Wind-Powered Rainmaking Machines. You have to have winds blowing towards a mountainous coastline, but the article says that the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf are well-suited. For a cautionary note, though, the BBC includes a link to the story of a 1952 cloud-seeding experiment gone terribly wrong."

Comments

So..

[prizzznecious]

Who wants odds on how long before weather is used as a weapon in war?

Or how long it takes before everyone but NATO is not allowed to fix their weather, as hurricanes are weapons of mass destruction?

Is Rainwater a Public Good?

[USC-MBA]

Who should control the rains? Given the evident costs of developing and implementing this plan, it would appear that this project should be one of those huge government-funded public boons, like a hydropower dam or a freeway.

But hold on, do we really want the weather to be run in a manner similar to such public services as the US Post Office or (shudder) the British Dental Service? I can see it now: some impoverished nation will be saddled with a National Department of Rain, complete with overpaid, slovenly employees and mounds of red tape, which will manage to get the rainclouds set up two days after the crops have all died, or right in the middle of a soccer game.

It is hoped that a private interest who might benefit from this technology, say a responsible, efficient agricultural conglomerate like Archer-Daniels-Midland, will be able to fund and deploy these rain-making devices, ensuring that plenty of water is available for all on an efficient market-driven basis. This would be a prime example of the kind of benefits globalization can bring to both the developed and developing countries of the planet.

Re:Is Rainwater a Public Good?

[perfessor multigeek]

a responsible, efficient agricultural conglomerate like Archer-Daniels-Midland
You are kidding, right?
Are we talking about the same ADM that had multiple senior executives convicted of fraud and price fixing? You know, the one case where their behavior was so bad that they're serving jail time. The same one that is considered a willful and determined sabotager of the family farm? The company that pushed for and got mandatory government support of gasahol based on their crops that cost two to three times the cost of petroleum?
No, maybe you're talking about the ADM that has used massive political contributions to cripple the production, pricing and availability of sugar in the United States, thereby not only leavng us with food products made with high fructose corn syrup (purchased from them, of course) that makes our food taste worse here and sell worse overseas, but also provides a major source of income for hard-core right-wing Cuban emigres for them to use to fund Iran-Contra and Latin American death squads.
No, perhaps you were thinking about their key role in funding Bob Dole's crushing of John McCain's push for campaign finance reform.
Impossible. You were probably thinking of this ADM, the one that has spread consistent misinformation about genetically modified crops, thereby making it much harder for those who are honestly trying to use genetic engineering to help their fellows.
Unless, of course, you're talking about the company whose role in the use of bovine growth hormone puts them on the top of the list for reasons that many American teenagers are now on a constant course of drugs just from the stuff they absorb from eating at places like McDonald's.
Sure, perhaps the worst company in America this side of Waste Management and Microsoft for ubiquitious and culturally supported corruption. A place that considers undermining of efficient government and an honest media right up there with price fixing and destructive competition as daily goals. Definitely the people *I* want running a crucial new social function.

Better go back and take some of those M.B.A. classes again. Sounds like you missed a few bits here and there.
Rustin

I see a little problem

[SuperMario666]

More rain for you probably means less rain for some or all of your neighbors. Sorta like the USA frequently using up the entire Colorado River before it reaches Mexico, Saudia Arabia might just suck up a lot of the rain headed towards Iran. Bu you know, I doubt that that would cause any problems :)

Re:screwing with weather?

[perfessor multigeek]

Irrigation doesn't affect the weather?
It certainly does on this planet, boyo.

Irrigated areas create different wind profiles, put water into the atmosphere (after all, that's how plants get water, it gets pulled up through the roots into the body of the plant by the capillary force of the water that's *already* evaporating off the leaves), and usually correlate with changes in species distribution and surface temperature.
Are these changes necessarily bad? A messy question. But they certainly take place.
Facts, ol' son. Start by getting facts.
Rustin

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Anonymous Coward]

they used a weather control system to make sure there would never be rain on the anniversary of the October Revolution (true). This system involved using cloud seeding to make sure it'd rain BEFORE the big parade.

mkb@libero.it

Re:screwing with weather?

[Irvu]

Don't forget that most if not all of the energy used on this planet (to drive irrigation systems) comes from such environmentally friendly sources such as Coal, Petroleum, and Nuclear Fission all of which throw pollution into the air, water, and soil.

Air pollution causes disease and effects global warming. Water pollution can lead to acid rain, if not the poisoning of plants and eventually, drought. Poisoned soil does the same. And, let's not forget what would happen if radioactive materials get into the air...

I'd also point out that pumping water for irrigation can lower the water table leading to drought just as pumping a lot of water out of a river can affect areas downstream.

Re:screwing with weather?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if radioactive materials got into the air, not a hell of a lot would happen except a localized increase in cancer rates... And, with modern design, the chances of it happening are so slim as to be considered zero.

Furthermore, nuclear "waste", despite taking a few thousand years to degrade, is by far the most environmentally friendly source of power known to us... Except perhaps wind, but wind power is a joke(not enough wind, too much wind, not enough wind, too much wind, ah, just the right amount, no wait, too much again) , and the more extreme environmentalists get upset about the thought of little birdies being chewed up.

Seeding the rain

[nadaou]

In regards to the great flood of '52, I've got to repeat the old mantra.. "correlation does not predicate causality." (eg, "everyone who goes to the dentist dies")

It is very very hard to seed clouds. You've got to get the silver iodide (or whatever) concentration just right- too many condensation nuclei and all you get is suspended fog. Too few, and the dropplets grow too slowly (collision is a major growth process). There've been many attempts over the years, but it is really really hard to prove correlation in the wild.. (send refs if you know otherwise!)

Even if you can make clouds, it doesn't mean you make rain. At all.

Now if they could only figure out the upper reflection vs greenhouse effect balance, more clouds might help solve our global warming problem. Or make it much worse.

..if even just 5% of our research science budget went to blue sky research, it would be a good thing (and IMO would pay back ++). If only our 'philosopher king' were less of a king and more of a philosopher...

Re:screwing with weather?

[Regul8or]

Wind power isn't about being perfect or a primary source of energy. Wind power is just a supplement and will stay a supplement due to it's unpredictable output characteristics. You need to look at the big picture with wind power. It's not about how much it can contribute in a day, it's about how much it can contribute over a year's time.

Possible solution to the water wars?

[core plexus]

This could be a possible solution to the "Water Wars" of the American southwest and Texas. Might also have applications to desert regions, and places that would like more snow. Some people say messing with the climate is a bad thing, but the climate is dynamic, and has changed drastically over time. On occasion, in a very short time. And spare me the proposal that people ought to move, or not move there in the first place; they're there and they won't leave until they are forced to, green lawns and swimming pools in tow.

I have to say it: after we're gone, the roaches will still rule.

Re:I dunno

[atomicdragon]

By salt, I meant silver iodide, which seems to be the most popular material used to seed clouds since it imitates the structure of water ice very closely.

A quick search has shown that silver iodide is believed to be mostly harmless (esp. according to the cloud seeding people). But studies have shown that areas that have been seeded with silver iodine show increases of silver in the enviroment and increased presence in local wildlife. Of course this is for inland seeding and not involving a hurricane over an ocean. Silver seems to be harmless, but it is suppose to be one of the most cummilative of the metals and in some biological forms can be toxic. But most of the silver ends up in inert inorganic forms. The net result, it does increase silver in the eviroment, but the effects are probably trivial.

Re: Cloud Seeding in Australia

[tuuw]

Actually cloud seeding does work in Australia. Hydro Tasmania has been undertaking cloud seeding trials since 1964.
Check out the faq at

http://www.hydro.com.au/renewableenergy/cloudsee di ng/faqs.html

The purpose of the cloud seeding is to increase rainfall in the catchment areas of hydro electric dams. Increased rainfall in these areas reduces the need to use supplementary energy sources, i.e. conventional oil fired power stations which tend to be rather expensive.

Needless to say farmers are less than impressed with these trials. They attribute unusually dry conditions experienced in the last few years on the east coast of Tasmania to these trials, claiming that Hydro Tasmania is stealing their water.

In the US as well

[Wyatt Earp]

Many think the Rapid City flood in 1972 was triggered by a cloud making experiment gone wrong.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/unr/iwe/1972/

"In a 6-hour time frame on June 9, 1972, a rush of water poured through Rapid City and canyons in the surrounding area, destroying homes, vehicles, businesses, bridges, and claiming 238 lives."

http://www.rbs2.com/weather.htm

"Lunsford v. U.S., 418 F.Supp. 1045 (D.S.Dak. 1976), aff'd, 570 F.2d 221 (8thCir.1977).

There was a flood in Rapid City, South Dakota on 9 June 1972 that killed 283people and caused extensive property damage. Plaintiffs alleged that the flood was caused by an experimental cloud seeding program operated by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, under contract to the U.S.Government."

http://www.sciencescene.com/suckley/evs105/05Atm os phere&Climate/05c-Lecture.htm

Creating is not theft.

[twitter]

The zero sum game always amazes me. Why is it that people just can't see beyond it. The article says:

Professor Salter told the BBC: "We are trying to break through the layer of rather stagnant, humid air that's at the very, very bottom of the atmosphere, in contact with the sea surface, and lift large volumes of water through this and squirt them out from 10 metres up in the air as a very fine spray, with a very big surface area."

This is creation, not theft. They are taking moisture from the sea and putting it in the air. As all that water will end up back in the sea and the chances that this project will lower sea level are nil, no one has lost anything. Those who feel the rain will have gained much.

If ten meters is all you need, I would try chimneys to suck the moist air up. No moving parts, cheap to prefabricate, easy to errect.