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

Cool.

[Hawthorne01]

This is good news for my grant application to deploy a sand-making machine in Algeria.

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?

Re:So..

[atomicdragon]

I guess the US has already tried to use this as a weapon. I came across this article where rain making was used in Vietnam. The UN has also already banned the use of weather control as a weapon. So much for the weather machine in Command and Conquer.

Re:So..

[coupland]

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

It's real, now. No need for speculation. The secretive European Union has been launching tornadoes and hurricanes and floods against the Americans for decades, unfortunately it's only resulted in more sturdy trailer-home designs...

Re:So..

[drinkypoo]

An amusing excerpt from that link:

Whether or not they work, past experiences tell us to be wary of tampering with the weather. In 1947, meteorologists tried to kill off a dying hurricane out at sea by seeding the clouds. The following day, the hurricane suddenly gathered strength, swung round and hit Savannah, Georgia causing extensive damage. The weather boffins were so rattled by the disaster it was not until August 1969 that they dared try again.

Yeah, see, these things work on kinetic energy, and by seeding the clouds you gave them more mass and produced more rain. Sure, you (obviously not you you, by the way, unless you are the one responsible for this) could stop it this way, but putting energy into a chaotic system when you don't know what you're doing is nearly always a mistake.

Cool link, thanks.

We shouldn't be playing with our environment...

[kakos]

...yet. We still don't know much about weather. Meteorology is not a sure science. And these kinds of experience with making rain, while noble, have the potential to cause quite a few deaths. The rain seeding experiment is an example of that.

We should avoid these sorts of experiments until we have a good understanding about how our weather works.

Re:We shouldn't be playing with our environment...

[Idarubicin]

Absolutely right. We should develop a complete understanding of weather based entirely on theory and calculation, in which we can place absolute confidence because no experimental data contradicts our model.

Of course, once we're sure we have a complete understanding, then let the weather modification begin.

I'm afraid that the early attempts at large-scale weather modification will always be experimental, no matter how much theory we throw at the problem first. Do we start experimenting sooner, or later?

screwing with weather?

[sickmtbnutcase]

"People have been trying for many years to modify the weather, from tribal rain dances through to experiments in which small crystals were dropped into clouds to attract moisture."

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but to me the weather the past few years hasn't seemed quite normal to begin with. Floods and heavy rain where it normally doesn't rain much, tornados in odd parts of the country, lack of snow where there's usually plenty....So why would we want to modify it by adding extra moisture in the air and making it rain in places which normally receive little rain to begin with? What would be the effects a few hundred miles away? Really, what's wrong with normal irrigation? It works, and doesn't affect the weather.

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

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?

[Selanit]

There are other consequences to irrigation as well. Take, for example, the state of the Great Plains aquifer, which underlies Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, and in fact most of the middle of the country. Aquifers are a resource in a delicate balance between the amount of water withdrawn and the amount of water recharged from streams and precipitation soaking into the ground.

Currently we are withdrawing water from the Great Plains aquifer about twice as fast as it is being replenished. My geology book from last year claimed it'll be used up in another 10-15 years. If that happens, some MAJOR changes are going to result. We'll have to decrease agricultural production to about 25% of current levels -- not enough water to plant the crops as densely as we hvae been. Cattle ranching will suffer, too -- not enough water to maintain the current herds.

This process is only being exacerbated by the prolonged drought throughout the western half of the country. Remember the Hayman fire in Colorado last summer? And the literally hundreds of other fires? That's because the entire region is as dry as a bone: we haven't been getting normal precipitation levels. Colorado (which is my home state) lost about three quarters of the crops that were planted this year due to the drought. Mandatory watering restrictions were in place all summer, and have already been announced for next year.

Then, of course, there are going to be some pretty severe economic repercussions. For a state whose primary industry is agriculture, a 75% decrease in crop yields, be it because of unusual drought or a depleted aquifer, is HUGE. Food prices -- especially for energy-intensive products like beef -- will go up. People will not be happy.

It's a mess. :-(

Re:screwing with weather?

[PurpleBob]

Right on.

It pains me to see environmentalists ranting against nuclear power. Every effective mode of power generation we have produces harmful waste; but with nuclear, we know exactly where all of it goes.

The problem is a terrible lack of perspective. People would rather have tons of soot pumped into the air than be around any amount of (gasp) radiation, no matter how small. There was a case I heard about where workers involved in some nuclear meltdown - it might have been Three Mile Island - got taken to court, and one of them finally pointed out that everyone there was being exposed to more radioactive materials by sitting in a granite courthouse than the people living near the site of the meltdown got.

Re:screwing with weather?

[zipwow]

PurpleBob said:
Hydrogen: Have any significant pockets of atomic hydrogen been discovered yet? Do we know how to "drill" for hydrogen without the risk of a huge explosion?

Is Hydrogen yet viable for all our energy? No. Should we stop researching it? Again, no.

Also, the usage of 'hydrogen' as a power source is somewhat ambiguous. "Drilling for hydrogen" isn't probably the approach we'd want to take. Using the tides to extract it from saltwater or some other similar approach is probably a better one.

Tides: The amount of energy tends to be insignificant unless the tides are really huge, like at the Bay of Fundy, in which case the power generators are already there.

Are you arguing that we can't make any advancements in tidal energy sources, and that all the places that can generate the energy are already tapped? I've read many articles about producing cheaper generators that, if deployed en masse, would generate a fair amount of power in lower tide areas. And even those types that are installed at the Bay of Fundy can be improved for efficiency. The process of creating the solar panels tends to be harmful to the environment.

Processes can be (and will be) improved, and even with their harms, they're far less dangerous than nuclear waste with a half-life of hundreds of millenia.

... you could never build enough to replace fossil fuels.

Who said we were relying on one power source?

Wind: you need lots of windmills

See above statement.

We pretty much are going with these cleaner options where they are available, but they don't replace fossil fuels.

Except for nuclear power, which doesn't deserve to be considered a 'cleaner option'. Keep in mind that uranium doesn't grow on trees. It, too, has to be mined and processed. Even that fact, though, pales when you consider:

Oh, and nuclear waste isn't usable as a weapon [...] So we bury it in the ground instead.

I'm not talking about a bomb. I'm talking about burying the stuff in *your* backyard. I'm talking about malicously polluting your water supply and/or farmland for the next 150,000 years.

In conclusion, I feel that the probability that the fission power waste will either be used as a weapon or will be mismanaged and cause great amounts of contamination sometime over the next 150,000 years is pretty close to 100%. We're just not responsible enough to use this power source. -Zipwow

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

Cautionary Note...

[thesophist]

Ever the diplomat, I'll gladly offer 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond,WA 98052, as a testing site.

Professor Salter told the BBC: "We are trying to break through the layer of rather stagnant, humid air...

Fitting, non?

I dunno

[Reality Master 101]

North Devon experienced 250 times the normal August rainfall in 1952. [...] She recalls: "Mum identified her by this huge wart on her back because she hadn't got no head, or arms, or legs when they found her".

I hate to be skeptical, but... the article seems to imply that this rain making experiment caused all this water to suddenly fall out of the sky. But what makes my "bullshit" meter go off is whether there is that much water in the air in the first place. I mean, 250 times the normal rainfall? I could see if you had some natural storm system come in that just happened to have a ton of moisture, but just to create out of "thin air" (so to speak) that much water out of normal conditions just doesn't sound plausible.

Particularly since if it were that easy, we would never have droughts.

Something isn't adding up here.

Re:I dunno

[Bishop923]

I would have to agree, based on the numbers...

Assume that the average august rainfall in North Devon is around 2 inches (5.08 cm). That would mean that 500 inches(1270 cm) of rain fell in that storm... almost 42 FEET(12.7 m) of rain fell in that single day.

I have a feeling they meant 250% of normal, 5 inches(12.7 cm) of rain falling in a farily short amt of time(say an hour or two) can have devastating effects, especially in flood plains where local rivers are already close to flood level. Far more likely than having enough rain to submerge a 5 storey building...

Stealing rain?

[stefanlasiewski]

Hrm...

If you force the rain to come down, NOW, RIGHT HERE, aren't you preventing the rain from falling on your neighbors? What if there is a drought and the neighbors need the rain?

READ THE ARTICLE

[mike3411]

I was just going through these posts to spend some of my mod points, and I was astounded at how few people had even given a cursory glance at the article. Unlike other experiments, which involve forcing existing atmospheric moisture (clouds) to precipitate into rain, the equipment proposed would actually add and create clouds from seawater. This is very different in effect, as it won't be taking moisture away from anyone else, but will rather just add a great deal of moisture to the whole region, which of course could have serious effects, both positive & negative.

I wonder what they're doing with all the salt.... it would build up wherever the water evaoporates, mebbe at the misting site? Seems like introducing that much salt into an area would be a problem.

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:Seeding the rain

[Ektanoor]

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!)

You seem quite scheptyc about rainmaking. Well, Russian government disclosed that it used several technologies for local weather control. There was even a program on TV about this. That confirmed the old suspicions people had about the strange weather changes during holidays in Soviet Union. For several years, people noted that if rain was about to come to Moscow in 1st of May, then as magic, clouds would disappear. However there was a side effect, as, somewhere around Moscow rain would fall like in the tropics. This was always considered as popular fantasy. However, this summer, a TV program showed one of the crews specially prepared for those missions. They showed nearly everything, from preparing the ingredients up to seeding the clouds. In an interview, one guy told that they were doing it since the 50's and there was already a whole science behind it, from how to stop rain up to how to make it fall. There were side effects dangers and whole models to avoid certain critical situations. There were several types of ingredients on use. Silver iodide occurred to be one of the least used. The most popular was... concrete powder.They say it is tremendously effective.

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.

Rapid City 1972

[MarkofT]

Oddly enough something similar occurred in Rapid City on June 9m 1972. Stories from the NWS and MPR.

please

[Lord Omlette]

Someone explain to me why every member of the British group wasn't round up and shot for gross negligence?

Also, I read that in order to use laser guided bombs in Kosovo, they had to use cloud dispersing techniques that resulted in horrific hailstorms in other parts of the Balkans. Unfortunately I read this three years ago and can't find any references to it... anyone?

Didn't I hear....

[Muad'Dave]

that the Chinese are planning to use rain/anti-rain making technology for the Olympics? I remember hearing that in the mainstream media. Here's a link

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.