Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Is Splashing $168 Million To Make It Rain (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on from the playing-god dept.

China, the world's second largest economy, is pouring 1.5 billion yuan ($168 million) into a program aimed at making it rain in its usually arid northwestern region. From a report: No stranger to using technologies like cloud seeding to influence and even control weather patterns, China's top economic planners recently gave the go ahead for what will be one of the country's largest weather-modification projects, reports the South China Morning Post. According to the Post, a feasibility study by the country's meteorological agency concluded that the three-year program could see a rise in precipitation over an area of 960,000 sq km, or as much as 10% of the country's landmass. The multi-million dollar budget allocated by the National Development and Reform Commission will reportedly cover the cost for four new aircraft and updates to eight existing planes, nearly 900 rocket launch systems and over 1,800 digital control devices.

77 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. That's great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except what about the countries where that rain would otherwise have landed? Not such a problem if it would have landed over sea, but this will be in the middle of the continent. Not a very nice neighbour to have.

    1. Re:That's great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is a case where I kind of miss the old "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag.

    2. Re:That's great.. by magarity · · Score: 4, Informative

      The prevailing winds in mid to northern China blow in from the west and head out to sea. The places that will get less rainfall will be along their own east coast.

    3. Re:That's great.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The prevailing winds in mid to northern China blow in from the west and head out to sea. The places that will get less rainfall will be along their own east coast.

      The east coast has plenty of rain, so that will be a good trade off. Also, the west has much higher elevation, so rain falling there can generate hydropower as it flows eastward.

    4. Re:That's great.. by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Lynmouth says hi!

      or more like "blub blub"

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:That's great.. by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not a very nice neighbour to have.

      With the factory expansions and environmental policies, I think that ship sailed years ago.

    6. Re:That's great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering Chinas' overall attitude towards other countries, perhaps they hope to create a water monopoly empire?

    7. Re:That's great.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Luckily, we have a fair number of historical examples drawn from the lower-tech world of competition for the water of a given river between multiple parties that live along it.

      Atmospheric moisture flows require more sophistication to track and exploit; but conflict patters should be pretty similar. Good thing land wars in Asia never go poorly!

    8. Re:That's great.. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard much success from seeding clouds to make rain, but I have seen a lot of success from pumping water from one place to another. I'm thinking of what was done in California's San Joaquin valley. Sunny days, and lots of water make for a good harvest.

    9. Re:That's great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure all the local plant and animal life agree. They definitely haven't adapted to arid or rainy conditions and will welcome the change to nicer weather.

    10. Re:That's great.. by magarity · · Score: 2

      Pumping water from one place to another can result in a tremendous loss due to evaporation, especially on sunny days. Trying to make it artificially rain is probably not too efficient or accurate but overall is likely less wasteful as long as it rains enough.

    11. Re:That's great.. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that because of a lack of water in a particular part of the planet is the issue being brought up. Given water evaporation in pumping then isn't it being lost in the right area that is perceived to be needing it? Looks like the Chinese government has to choose between gambling on a cloud being able to rain, or calculating for evaporation on a sure thing. I guess that's why they make the big bucks?

    12. Re:That's great.. by jmccue · · Score: 1

      to be fair, playing with seeding in an area that gets a lot of rain is like pouring alcohol on a fire. May put it out or may explode or may work, depending on type and how poured :)

    13. Re:That's great.. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      in fact, I would like to see America do this through the rockies. We really need to get more water going down the Colorado.
      At the same time, we need to require California to desalinate water and quit stealing water from the Colorado River.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:That's great.. by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Most desertification in northern China occurred due to the cultural revolution and mistakes in land management. That killed the native animals and plants outright. This project will allow descendants from other areas to repopulate and recreate the ecosystem from previous centuries.

    15. Re:That's great.. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's ok, I've heard they have a contract with some Sicilians.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:That's great.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      At the same time, we need to require California to desalinate water and quit stealing water from the Colorado River.

      We could do that, or we could just stop subsidizing farmers growing rice in the desert.

    17. Re:That's great.. by YouGotTobeKidding · · Score: 1

      OR almonds in Cali... or other extremely thirsty crops in areas not really meant for growing them!

  2. Nefarious uses? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh great, one country hacks our elections, the other rains on them to affect voter turnout.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re: Nefarious uses? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless the polls were hacked, then the election wasn't hacked.

      If somebody obtains dirt on a political party through illicit means, and that dirt swayed public opinion, then that might be unfair, but it doesn't mean the election was less legitimate. People can vote any way they choose for any reason.

      The DNC was hacked; not the election.

    2. Re: Nefarious uses? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      That would explain a lot. It also answers a lot of questions that the pundits have asked. It would also play into the myopia of the Clinton CHQ, and the DNC. This would also make a great game and movie title. There is one question I don't have an answer to, "did the DHLS enjoy the Lard Ass and Chief's pep talk?" I guess we'll see. LOL

    3. Re: Nefarious uses? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      I also wish to point out that there have been far greater "unfair" influences in past elections. When Obama was first elected he was absolutely the media darling. Since most all of the news organizations are very left leaning (http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/), one can claim there is an imbalance and unfair advantage to one political party. This was amplified even more in Obama's favor.

      Trump managed to win despite being hated by the vast majority of news organizations. I like to think that the leaked truths about the DNC's behavior offset that to some small degree, however in the whole, I think Trump had far more unfair bias against him than Hillary by players that should have no say so in the outcomes of our election.

      And don't even get me started on Hollywood. It's unfortunate that those with the microphones and biggest distribution channels are the only ones who get to be heard, just because of some silly celebrity status.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    4. Re: Nefarious uses? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What, they want to shoot pollution?

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    5. Re: Nefarious uses? by Ionized · · Score: 1

      the news orgs may have hated Trump, but they handed him the election nonetheless. Probably because they all assumed Hillary was going to win, and created stories accordingly, to sensationalize and get viewers instead of influence the election.

      The vast majority of news coverage was about Hillary's emails and how Trump was a bad person. There was nearly no discussion on their actual policies, or attempts to get Trump to even commit to policies.

      Many voters went into the voting booth having very little idea what the two candidates would actually do once in office, which worked very much in favor of Trump.

      To wit: the majority of Trump voters polled thought that Trump would be RAISING taxes on the rich. Many Trump voters rely on the ACA, but were quoted as saying they didn't think he would actually repeal it. etc etc.

  3. Go Joe! by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    I sure hope COBRA doesn't get their hands on this technology...

    1. Re:Go Joe! by snookiex · · Score: 1

      Oh my God, I read CORBA and also wished that no one ever has to get their hands on that technology... again.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  4. It's the Gobi Desert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Usually arid northwestern region" indeed. They'd have better luck doing what Africa is doing to combat the spread of the Sahara -- e.g. restoring grasslands.

    1. Re:It's the Gobi Desert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's actually the Taklamakan Desert. The Gobi Desert is farther east.

    2. Re:It's the Gobi Desert by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They're doing that, too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Cheap by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    This is ridiculously cheap for a government project by US standards. How come we didn't do it here in California a few years ago?

    1. Re:Cheap by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      California has a cloud seeding program....

    2. Re:Cheap by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

      I see it has been tried at various points but I don't see that it has a 'program' per se.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    3. Re:Cheap by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      That could well be true since there is a lot of resistance to cloud seeding in some areas though LA County does. Cloud seeding isn't looked on in favorable terms by a lot of the scientific community because it's not predictable and difficult to measure results.

  6. Never worked before, will never work now by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't change the amount of water in the sky. There are always enough nucleation sites for raindrops, especially in polluted China. And $168m isn't going to change global weather patterns.
     
    Glad to see that China is becoming more like the US. Big contractors selling snake-oil to the government.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    1. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Like many government programs, the end goal is simply to justify spending. Never forget the business model of government: you take money from some people, you distribute some of it to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself. The key phrase, of course, is "keep the rest for yourself".

    2. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There are always enough nucleation sites for raindrops, especially in polluted China.

      China's air pollution is in the east, thousands of km from where the seeding will occur.

    3. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by hey! · · Score: 1

      I too find it hard to believe that there is any empirical justification for trying this. That said, I'd like to know what they think indicates this will work. I'm wondering whether they might be dealing with some kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc scenario where cloud seeding efforts coincided with changing rainfall patterns.

      In any case, the place they're trying this appears to be Qinhai Province, up on the Tibetan Plateau. The population density there 7.8/km^2 -- roughly similar to Wyoming (5.97/km^2).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      In the US you only enrich yourself by indirect means, such as 'campaign contributions' and gifts. But both major political parties in the US are definitely in favor of wealth redistribution. It just depends on which direction they want the wealth to move.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      That sounds like another opportunity to sell some snake oil to the Chinese government.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    6. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      That sounds like another opportunity to sell some snake oil to the Chinese government.

      Every village in China has at least one herbal medicine shop selling REAL snake oil. Despite having an education, and an engineering degree, my Chinese wife believes it works.

    7. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      I am not all that superstitious. But I'm told it works even if you don't believe in it. So yeah, make sure a cat does not cross your path, nor a lone Brahmin come in the opposite direction when you set out. Seeing a flower girl, or a woman wearing turmeric and flowers or full pot or milk cow are all good omens.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    8. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by hey! · · Score: 1

      Justifications are not empirical. A justification can't be proven any more than justice can be proven to exist.

      Well, you'd expect a justification to cite empirical evidence. Or have we lost the thread that badly?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by hey! · · Score: 1

      Science is not about a priori knowledge.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by lgw · · Score: 1

      Never forget the business model of government: you take money from some people, you distribute some of it to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself. The key phrase, of course, is "keep the rest for yourself".

      Not true. Often the "istribute some of it to other people" is the key point: those other people own a pet politician, and his job is to ensure a steady stream of taxpayer money to his owners. More money was given out in bank bailouts than has ever stuck to the hands of a politician.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Never worked before, will never work now by radl33t · · Score: 1

      This is not government behavior; it is human behavior.

  7. Great alternative to minefields by fubarrr · · Score: 1

    Have enemy rain over enemy roads, turn them into muddy mess. Enemy tanks will stuck and sink in mud.

    Imagine China doing that if they invade America http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K...

    1. Re:Great alternative to minefields by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Imagine if tanks were WWII technology and China had nuclear weapons and didn't give a shit what the pretty weather girl said.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Great alternative to minefields by Minupla · · Score: 1

      "Make Mud - Not War" - It's been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

        Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    3. Re:Great alternative to minefields by negRo_slim · · Score: 2

      There is an International Treaty banning the use of weather modification for hostile purposes I'm afraid.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    4. Re:Great alternative to minefields by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because if WWIII ever happens, everyone will follow all the existing international treaties. They should just sign a treaty agreeing to never engage in WWIII at all.

    5. Re:Great alternative to minefields by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      They did that after WW I. It worked right up until WW II happened.

  8. make clouds not war by Gaby+de+Wilde · · Score: 1

    Last time I tried to find documentation online I couldn't find it anymore but long long ago (2004 ish) two Australian professors designed a wind turbine shaped like an O that spins around its axle (a vawt) It was to be scaled up and planted in the ocean. At the bottom (center) it took water in that was swirled up the 2 arms where it was sprayed outwards from reasonable height. Most of the water would fall back into the ocean taking all of the salt with it (some 60% if I remember correctly(I usually don't)) the rest would vaporize into clouds. I didn't check their math or anything but they argued that an array of these would be needed to green deserts. Also interesting: It is a closed community but cloudbusters work.

    --
    gdewilde@gmail.com
    1. Re:make clouds not war by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      An array of millions`

    2. Re:make clouds not war by Gaby+de+Wilde · · Score: 1

      These ordinary turbines make a good visual reference: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma... I assume the professors were able to do their math right but in the end we can only know what it costs and how it performs by building them.

      --
      gdewilde@gmail.com
  9. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Shoot, A Fella' Could Have A Pretty Good Weekend In Vegas With All That Stuff.

    1. Re:What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      In Doctor Strangelove? It was originally "Dallas" but changed to "Vegas" after the Kennedy assassination.

  10. Given the gender imbalance in that country by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2

    The last thing they need is for it to be raining men.

  11. Sure thing by war4peace · · Score: 1

    Let's fuck the world juuust a lil' bit deeper.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  12. Oh, James! by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Sorry, this sounds like something that SPECTRE is more likely to exploit.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  13. Re:Trump $ Trump $ Trump by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Did you put a $ in the subject to indicate those are an extra cost item in his hotels?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  14. Atmospheric Weight by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Sure the more carbon atoms you place in the atmosphere the heavier it gets and holds more water. But even if this ploy does work is is a real solution, or a band aid on a gaping gushing wound?

  15. It's Gobi desert... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A rain shadow desert.
    Any "countries where that rain would otherwise have landed" already got most of the moisture out of the air, which is why that place is a desert.

    Cloud seeding is part of Chinese plan to build a Green Great Wall to stop the spread of the desert and the sandstorms.
    Which seems to be doing something, at least in the sense that it is apparently lowering the water table in the areas where trees are planted.

    Or that is at least what the opposition to the forestation program claims, suggesting instead simply fencing off the area and "nurturing the land by the land itself".
    How would that create trees in areas which were "treeless in the last several thousand years", or how would temporary fencing off prevent sandstorms (even should grassland work that way) once the fences are removed and the grasslands are once again used for cattle grazing... the article doesn't mention that.
    Then again, water levels have been dropping long before forestation project started. And trees are supposed to keep the water in the ground...

    On the other hand, Epoch Times is more than a little a Falun Gong paper.
    I.e. Whatever Chinese government does is wrong. While whatever Falun Gong does might get them arrested and "reeducated" by the government. Or harvested.

    In any case, weather modification is being done in order to provide water for the Green Wall in the area which got desertified as the water from Shiyang River was used for irrigation upstream decades ago.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  16. Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Unless the polls were hacked, then the election wasn't hacked.

    That's a matter of interpretation of words. English is ambiguous, it has nowhere near the precision of say a programming language. I tried to keep it short rather than more accurate but fastidious and verbose because most readers in this context like it that way (for good or bad).

    If a country exposes internal documents from one party but NOT the other party, and creates mass fake news stories in order to influence voter decisions, that is arguably still "hacking the election". If I wanted to say hacking the voting machines, I would have said hacking the voting machines. "Election" is a more general word/concept than "

    I did not objectively say it wrong.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Correction:

      Finished version of the second-to-last sentence: "Election" is a more general word/concept than "voting machine".

      I accidentally bumped "Send" instead of "Preview".

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by erapert · · Score: 2

      ...and creates mass fake news stories in order to influence voter decisions...

      The things that the hack revealed about the DNC were not fake.

    3. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by Altus · · Score: 2

      Including all that Pizza gate shit?

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by erapert · · Score: 2
      Was there an email from the DNC hack that included information about the Pizza Gate thing?
      I think most people concerned about the DNC hack are more concerned about the DNC having torpedoed Bernie Sanders' campaign so that Hilllary would win the nomination and other dirty laundry about the DNC's donors etc.

      The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."

      "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."

      The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party’s wealthy donor class

      The fact that some retards created a bullshit scandal doesn't change the real issues that the hack revealed.
      Oh, wait, the Pizza Gate thing wasn't a result of the DNC hack but of an unrelated hack of Podesta's email.

    5. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I didn't claim it was. I invite you to read my post more carefully this time.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Bernie was not even a registered Democrat. He should NOT expect equal treatment to a registered Democrat.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    7. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by erapert · · Score: 1

      If a country exposes internal documents from one party but NOT the other party, and creates mass fake news stories in order to influence voter decisions...

      I think I read that correctly.

    8. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The "mass fake news" was fake. But that statement says NOTHING about the accuracy of the DNC internal documents one way or another. You seem to be confusing 2 diff issues for unknown reasons.

      Russia did (at least) two nefarious things: first, hacked into the DNC internal documents (or at least tried to), and second, posted mass fake news on a variety of topics in a variety of places.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    9. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by erapert · · Score: 1

      The "mass fake news" was fake. But that statement says NOTHING about the accuracy of the DNC internal documents one way or another.

      The veracity of those emails can be confirmed. Because cryptography.

      Russia did (at least) two nefarious things: first, hacked into the DNC internal documents (or at least tried to)

      It's not factual to assert that the hack was perpetrated by the Russians or by the Russian government.

    10. Re:Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Again, you are mixing up two different things. I don't know how to straighten you out, I've explained it twice already. I'll let somebody else try. I fricken give up. Stay Stupid; it suits you.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  17. I'm not an expert by snookiex · · Score: 1

    But I'm not sure that manipulating the weather (and later climate) patterns is a good idea in the long run.

    --
    Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  18. Re: Ecological train wreck by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    When 'they' already have very high tariffs on imports, yes it is.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  19. Nobody commented on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To my knowledge, China is NO LONGER the world's second economy... They passed the US in 2015...

  20. That will make for some very happy strippers.. by severn2j · · Score: 1

    http://www.urbandictionary.com...

    https://www.tenor.co/view/make...