TED Conversations

Mitch SMith

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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.

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 16 2012: I don't think we can know the long-term impacts of changing variables at such a small level.

    You manipulate variable X on the timeline...it may turn out to be a huge impact in the future. Our changes scale with time. If it scales enough...you may create a hurricane from one extra mass of clouds.

    I think Mitch has it right. We cannot go around making changes until we at least consider the possible long-term impacts. We also need to understand that we may not know the possible impacts. Therefore, we cannot even gauge the risk properly.

    We know our universe is cause and effect.

    So we change a column of data (ABXABXABX) TO (ABXABXABXG).

    We have now created a new "law" in the universe. Think of the blue sky before the cloud.

    (blue sky) Then after the cloud (blue sky + cloud).

    We would obviously consider the type of cloud and the possible future states of the cloud. However, the main problem here is that we now changed things.

    As space 1 with (ABXABXABX) would have operated as an empty space...it now operates as a space with clouds in it. This will in turn change the way that space reacts to everything else. As the cloud moves it changes the potential state of each space equally. If the cloud merges with another cloud or meets other weather systems it adds information that would have never been present before.

    (New Cloud) + (Space 5555555 (Inserted cloud)) instead of (Space 5555555(empty)).
    • thumb
      Dec 17 2012: I agree.

      it has been observed that clouds are formed by electro-static forces.
      The water dropets nucleate around a positively charged particle and form a lipid plasma with a greater positive potential at the surface. The concentration of negative charge around the nucleus attracts other dropets which approach to balance with the more distributed positive charge at which point they stop converging - this is why a cloud is not a single blob of water.
      Electrical discharges alter the attraction/repulsion balance and allow for larger dropets to form enough to precipitate aas rain.

      Artificially seeding clouds increases the electrical potentials - they may not come to precipitate, but they will raise the atmospheric plasma potentials. I suspect that most of what we take for "UFOs" are no more than plasma phenomena. I also suspect that the earth's electromagnetic relationship with the sun and solar system is being altered in unpredictable ways.

      Chaos mathematics gives us some understanding of teh dynamic range a system is capable of - but that implies understanding of teh energy available to the system. If it becomes entangled in a wider system, the energy potentials are unknowable.
      In other words; whilever we are simply manipulating local systems(atmosphere), the risk is measurable within a range, but if potentials attract participation in wider systems, one has to fully comprehend the risk potentials there - and we don't. It might be argued that there is an infinite continuum of wider systems - which implies that we will never know.

      So that brings us to the nature of "agency". I argue that my responsibility for what i do(agency) is to keep the effects of my acts to impact me and me alone - and that if my acts impinge the conditions of others, then it must be done with negotiated consent - to do otherwise is a violation.

      Vandalising my sky is a violation - and it is not just a cosmetic violation.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.