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.

  • Dec 7 2012: whether or not it's a good idea, the public should be given a lot of education on what's going on. otherwise it results in chemtrail conspiracy theorists who become fanatics. the pros and cons of cloud seeding should have been discussed in public forums. instead, it's a now privitized service bought out by public sectors behind the majority's back. nothing should ever happen like this.
    • thumb
      Dec 7 2012: I agree Max,

      the notion of information is rapidly dissapearing in a puff of youtube soundbytes.
      When I got interested in this a few weeks ago, I went off to see what was beign said around the net, and it's a circus bigger than the Colloseum.

      I think we should start rating issues by some sort of circus-scale - something like nukes.
      Chemtrails would score something like: a 20-megacolloseums on the circus scale.

      So how does anyone get informed consent in amongst all that?

      One thing that it does reveal is that information itself is under attack.

      I think there is an opportunity for a new professional class of people who go out and see for themselves - and come back to report. Sort of like private investigators.
      This is what journalism was supposed to do, but journalism has let us down big-time.

      In the absence of any such reliable service, all we are left with is our senses - if you have not seen it, it is probably a lie. Rumor of what lies byond the horizon is just that - rumor.

      All I know for sure is that I've seen some cloud seeding over my community and it mucks-up the sky. I don't like it, but before I go off complaining, best I understand what I'm talking about .. but the internet is more hindrance than help. I raised the topic here hoping for some more insight - and yes, a little, but not anything to base a decision on.

      I like Marvin Minski - he's a magnificent nutbag, but appears to be honest. He has a talk here somewhere where he observes that people have never sought due dilligence with new technologies - they just go ahead and do it .
      The critical point behind that is to ask - why do we want these powers in the first place? And How much power can a human be trusted with? I'm still iffy about cars .. too many of my friends got killed or killed others by cars when I was a young man - were they to blame?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.