Now I know how I got argyrosis.

People doing this cloud seeding should be forced, alongside with their children, to live in these areas.

I work with CWCB and have never heard of hail cannons applied. I believe a few car dealerships have a sonic device for hail suppression, but I don’t know if it’s the old-school conic acetylene projector.

I don't think there's any scientific basis for the use of hail cannons (by any name). The explanation that the sound waves "disrupt the formation of hailstones" is a post-hoc justification; the practice had existed for hundreds of years, long before anyone had any theories about how it might work.

Any negative effects of cloud seeding for the water produced or the environment?

I have no opinion about weather modification but I live in CO and have a bunch of new age and wook friends.

I've had a conversation several times where the other interlocutor has used these programs have been used to justify a belief in "chem trails".

It's a really bad conversational cycle.

me: "Chemtrails aren't real"

wook: "yeah but they are doing weather modification"

me: "but a) it's not a consipracy because they publish explicitly what they are doing and b) weather modification programs aren't 'chemtrails'"

wook: "yeah but they are doing weather modification"

I love my friends, but yeesh.

You have friends from Kashyyyk?

> me: "but a) it's not a consipracy because they publish explicitly what they are doing and

Seems like a bad argument. They could simply be lieing, withholding information. And we should expect precisely that if there was a conspiracy.

If you start with the assumption that all information you get is false unless it conforms to what you want to believe, then yeah, you're gonna see conspiracies everywhere.

There's no ledge for that slippery slope. Everyone could be telling you lies. You could be living the Trumann show. Your dentist might be implementing mind control devices in your teeth while you're asleep. Lizard people might be running the Illuminati.

At some point, you need to find a way to live with a reasonable amount of uncertainty.

useful idiot (plural useful idiots)

2. (derogatory, political jargon) One who is seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause through their 'naive' attempts to be a force for good.

I have usually viewed those conspiracy theories as an attempt to impugn their own (and our own) government with ill intent. It's agitprop. Like the opposite of beer goggles, it only sees anger and hatred and ill-will. Aesop's Fables already tell us that any old excuse will do, no matter how silly.

What is "wook"?

'Wook' here. Got the dreadlocks, grateful dead tiedye, the VW Westfalia and everything.

It's short form for wookie. (star wars, chewbaca) Basically came out of the jamband scene. If you've ever been to a music festival, and seen the dreadlocked folks, that party way to hard. That's a wook.

One of my fav insta meme accounts -- you'll get the idea. - https://www.instagram.com/cbgtwh/

--

Anyway, yes, hippies have been talking about chem trails for years. While you can call it a 'conspiracy theory'. Reality is -- they are doing weather modification, and have been for years. Maybe it's a matter of semantics for you. But the reality is, they are releasing chemicals (silver iodide), via aircraft, into the atmosphere. That's a fact.

As to claims of malfeasance. Unknown. I myself, and perhaps your 'wook' friends, have a problem with dropping chemicals from aircraft on unsuspecting populations. Who knows what the long term health impacts of that are. Probably some of that school of thought goes back to a time when they were using DDT on mosquitos. That turned out real well.

It did turn out real well? It ended malaria in the southern United States? Ended mosquito populations in hundreds of square miles? It was kind of a big deal?

It's use in the US was banned in 1972. Fact sheet from the national pesticide information center:

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/ddtgen.pdf

Oh,to be clear you are 100% correct in that we a) don't know the long term effects and b) in general folks aren't aware of these kinds of programs even if they are in more or less plain sight.

I appreciate your comment.

These projects seems very much like every other shitty thing that has been done around here, ranging from killing off predator populations to residential schools. Which is why I have very little opinion- the gov will do what they will do, and I will never have enough money to change that balance or enough tolerance for prison to do much directly.

However, I don't agree that it's just semantics to say that these projects are not "chemtrails".

Part of what I see in a larger group of people (for whom I am very fond) is a willingness to abandon most material nuance in their understanding of the world. In this case, specifically, it seems like a pretty normal case where the government is doing something with no regard for anything other than money.

That's not, specifically, what people are talking about when they are talking about chemtrails, and that is important to me.

Because the whole "chemtrials" discussion is a very handy metaphor about something that really is true:

the folks who own this place undertake vast technological projects with no regard for our well being.

However, since that's a metaphor and can be detached from reality, the responses to it can become immaterial and ineffective.

Like, great, maybe we can all go sit in energy vortexes in Sedona and examine our starseed bodies so we can astrally project into a dimension where we can directly battle the annunaki because the lizard people are trying to mind control the NPCs.

Or we can go levitate the pentagon or whatever people used to do for fun back int he day.

To me the specifics of these things matter because the responses vary based on how we understand the cause.

The fact that the government feels like they hold all the cards means that they are just up front about what they are doing and have no problem being violent to anyone who directly opposes those projects.

So it's hard enough to mount a effective material response to that situation without also having to deal with a bunch of misunderstandings of the world or going to prison for blowing up dams or burning down ski resorts.

Anyhow, sorry for the rant. I hope I'm just wrong and that all my new age friends really can manifest 5D consciousness and that Desert really is a wrong-headed bit of ficiton.

Word. Yeah, I'm not sure there's much to be done.

My response most of the time is to just shrug, and be like government's gonna government. Most of the folks in the scene that I've met that are pretty far out, mean well, but perhaps aren't the best at logically explaining their views.

Others I think have probably opted out, or 'dropped out' as 'ol tim leary would suggest. Without the ability to materially affect change, I think folks turn toward things they can control. Such as expanding their consciousness, and other forms of magical thought.

I've managed to keep one foot in both worlds. (the squares, and the wooks) Because, life is too interesting not to. Keep your feet on the ground and your head in the clouds as they say.

I mean, hey, even the government itself was very interested in the nature of consciousness. Even weaponizing it for intelligence purposes. Have a look through the CIA's declassified STARGATE program:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/collection/stargate

So, perhaps levitating the pentagon, or meditating in vortex's isn't totally out of the question. Who am I to judge? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm no one to judge either, and that is why I keep having these kinds of conversations.

One one level, I wish that folks would quit manifesting my ipad charger as a heaven sent gift for their iphones when I am just trying to run sound from that under-charged ipad at some kind of conscious dance festival.

On another level, I'm just glad there are people out there who still think that there's stuff which could be done.

My hope is that instead of magical thought, we can just be kind and caring enough locally for people we know that it'll see folks through because that's a real thing that we do control.

Ten years ago, if someone mentioned weather modification, someone not unlike yourself would call them crazy conspiracy theorists.

Now you fully accept the fact that what they were claiming is true, but because you don't care for their vocabulary they are still conspiracy theorists....

This is kind of silly. What is a trail of chemicals left behind an airplane? They chose to say "chemtrail".

Don't you see how that is kind of upside down?

Why would anyone think it was a conspiracy in 2013? This was an established practice and documented all over the place a decade ago. Here's the Wikipedia page on cloud seeding from 2010 (twelve years ago): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_seeding&old...

How could I answer that question. It is a non-question.

Why would such a large group of people chose not to investigate the public record? Those same people are commonplace idiots, I suppose. They have not been informed by their echochambers that these things are occurring and so the idea, to them, is crazy conspiracy. Now, those same idiots chose semantic debate about the use of some phrase or word choice instead of acknowledging their lack of awareness.

Wait till they hear about aimed lightning:

https://arstechnica.com/?p=1910281

> "it's tricky to prove that a weather result would or would not have happened if the cloud seeding effort didn't take place."

It's notable that weather modification programs of the 1950s were iniated before the discovery of sensitive dependence on initial conditions (popularly known as 'chaos') in weather systems, by Edward Lorenz. His 1995 book, "The Essence of Chaos" is still the best overview of the subject:

https://uwapress.uw.edu/book/9780295975146/the-essence-of-ch...

The 2010 book by JR Fleming, "Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control" is a good review of failed weather modification schemes in the past:

https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1028

The problem is kind of like that of tossing pebbles down a mountainside - regardless of whether there's an avalanche, you can't tell if the avalanche would have happened anyway, or if the 100th pebble launched triggered the avalanche. Putting enough energy into the system to guarantee a result of some kind (a stick of dynamite for the avalanche analogy) is prohibitive since weather systems tend to contain a gigantic amount of energy.

This isn't really directly relevant for the form of weather modification - cloud seeding - discussed here, though.

Generally speaking, cloud seeding doesn't focus on state changes; you're not trying to materialize a precipitation cloud from clear air. It's straightforward enough to understand if a flow will lead to cloud formation. Generally speaking, it's also pretty straightforward with modern numerical weather prediction or large eddy simulations to predict whether those clouds that form will produce precipitation.

The problem here is the counter-factual in the real-world. If you seed a cloud with an ice-nucleating substance like silver iodide, how will that change the balance of microphysical processes that lead to precipitation production? It's really, really hard to directly measure these, and it's not obvious that you can observe "the next cloud over" (e.g. in a cloud street or a convective field) as a null case. Furthermore, "observing" that cloud might involve flying an aircraft with cloud probes through it (it's not always the case that a terrestrial X-band or aircraft-mounted radar will provide all the information you need to close the microphysical budget), and of course the aircraft itself can perturb the cloud.

This has really doesn't have anything to do with chaos or sensitivity to initial conditions. It's really just an issue of in the real world, we don't have a clean way to simultaneously measure the null hypothesis (what happens inside the cloud you don't perturb).

> "Since the early cloud-seeding experiments reported by Kraus and Squires (1947), wherein it was hypothesized that the observed “explosive growth” of cumuli was the result of artificially induced glaciation of the cloud, there has been intensive interest and research in the relationships between evolution of the ice phase and the dynamics of cumuli."

As I understand it the idea is that a small amount of AGI or can cause nucleation which might trigger rainfall:

> "Thus, the latent heat liberated during the freezing of supercooled droplets and the vapor deposition growth of ice particles can augment the diminishing cloud buoyancy production during condensation growth of cloud droplets. In some cases, the additional buoyancy may be sufficient to allow a cloud to penetrate weak stable layers or to survive the entrainment of relatively dry environmental air."

The idea in cloud seeding is to hit a cloud 'on the verge of rain and push it over the boundary, but it doesn't seem straightforward at all to determine if a given cloud on that boundary will produce rain or not, as in a '50% chance of rain' forecast. It does indeed seem to be one of those chaotic boundary condition issues:

> "This demonstrates that there exists a very intimate, nonlinear coupling between buoyancy production by glaciation of a cloud and the evolution of the microstructure of the cloud, and the evolving cloud motion field."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sci...

Thanks for sharing your reference.

This is hysteresis, not "sensitivity to initial conditions" - a system is evolving on a particular semi-stable trajectory, and then gets nudged to a new one with a different equilibrium or evolution.

Why is weather modification in quotation marks?