TED Conversations

Mitch SMith


This conversation is closed.

The case for cloud-seeding

It is quite evident that most states in the world now conduct cloud seeding.

Cloud seeding is not all that new, in my youth it was common in the apple growing districts to shoot skyrockets above possible hail formations to disrupt the coalsecence of hail stones and reduce their impact on the crops. I believe the active chemical used was silver nitrate.

The more common chemical seen in modern cloud seeding is silver iodide. This nucleates rain drops which then gather electrostatically into cloud.

You will recognise them for their whispy-feathery appearance, which may or may not form into rain clouds - depending on the ambient humidity.

The presence of cloud seeding was first noticed by conspiracy theorists as "chemtrails", agianst which no official refutation was poffered - because no public agreement was sought for the practice.

I can think of some good reasons for cloud seeding - wildfire mittigation, cachement optimisation (water-supply dams) or even mittigation of global warming.

We don't know the justifications because we were not consulted. And the debate was never undertaken.

Let's have the debate now.

To kick it off, i will opose the practice and state as my opening arguement that: cloud seeding is vandalism of the sky.

Please state and argue your case:

For and against.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 26 2012: I just found this much more detailed examination of the question.

    All this seems to be confirmable.
    Since this is clearly impacting more than my little bit of the planet - It seems worth a look for nearly everyone!


    I had no idea it was this extensive
    • thumb
      Nov 26 2012: congratulations. you have just established yourself as a conspiracy theorist.
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2012: Actually Kriztian, that site is dedicated to defusing conspiracy theorists.
        All the links are on teh record - despite the author's divulged personal stance, he has been at pains to publish teh evidence as he has found it.

        Congratulations - you have successfully established yourself as, at best - a vested interest, and at worst - a shallow armchair commentator.

        On second thoughts ... well, no I don't know what you are. And it seems silly to endulge in name calling. Perhaps some well supported arguement would help?
      • thumb
        Nov 26 2012: Hi Kriztian,

        You are not alone. Often I find it difficult to not be affected by the delusions of others.
        I have observed that you have a great deal of substance to add to any discussion. Hopefully I can prompt you to add your insight with this issue.
        From what i see in the empirical material, weather-mod attempts have no more than around 10% success rates. I think that's important.
        Also, the material linked by Edward shows that we do have an issue with the affects of particulate effluent from industry - particularly coal fired power stations. Having lived in coal mining towns, I know that the nearby power stations were constrained to add electrostatic precipitators to reduce ash emissions, but that they often turned them off at night.
        So we have a fairly complex discussion on our hands:
        On the one hand, it seems like gross meddling in dynamics we understand little of.
        On the other hand, we have a need to offset accidental influences to restore humidity flows.
        But there is the new added dimension of the Co2 and global effects from it.
        I have observed that people rarely "go down the hole" to fully understand things - which results in the politicisation of any issue with a technical cause. The Gore Vs. Monkton circus comes to mind.
        I saw that politicisation at work when I was involved in fixing the Y2K computer bug - the tinfoil-hat-brigade were out in force at teh time - made me laugh, but the exploiters of the politics and allocation of budgets made me somewhat sick.
        A thing that also concerns me a bit is that the tinfoil-hat guys now claim that the global climate thing is a ruse. I already know how this works - they see only the politics (which certainly exist), but one must go look at teh actual scientific papers to really understand - scientific papers are very dry and un-sexy - there's no entertainment value in them, so they get conveniently pushed aside in favour of the drama.
        What are your thoughts?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.