Despite the American Meteorological Society <https://ams.confex.com/ams/>, World Meteorological Organization <http://www.wmo.int/>, and the National Research Council's <http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/> National Academy of Sciences Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate<http://dels.nas.edu/basc>stating clearly that weather modification is an unproven science and that large scale experiments should be limited to modelling, the geoengineering community pushes ahead with their rebranded weather modification techniques<http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/geoengineering-projects.html> :
"Although 40 years have passed since the first NAS report on weather > modification, this Committee finds itself very much in concurrence with the > findings of that assessment... > We conclude that the initiation of large-scale operational weather > modification programs would be premature. Many fundamental problems must be > answered first. It is unlikely that these problems will be solved by the > expansion of present efforts, which emphasize the a posteriori evaluation > of largely uncontrolled experiments. We believe the patient investigation > of the atmospheric processes coupled with an exploration of the > technological applications may eventually lead to useful weather > modification, but we emphasize that the time-scale required for success may > be measured in decades." > National Science Foundation - Critical Issues in Weather Modification > Research (2003) <http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10829&page=67> "It was concluded that tests conducted so far have not yet provided either > the statistical or physical evidence required to establish that the seeding > concepts have been scientifically proven." > American Meteorological Society - Critical Assessment of Hygroscopic > Seeding of Convective Clouds for Rainfall > Enhancement<http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-84-9-1219> "It should be realised that the energy involved in weather systems is so > large that it is impossible to create cloud systems that rain, alter wind > patterns to bring water vapour into a region, or completely eliminate > severe weather phenomena. Weather Modification technologies that claim to > achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific > basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with > suspicion" > "Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction of hail damage, > dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud > seeding are developing technologies which are still striving to achieve a > sound scientific foundation." > World Meteorological Society - Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on > Weather > Modification<http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf>( > mirror <http://rezn8d.com/images/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf> > ) In 2004, in light of the findings of the National Academy of Science (11), > the EAA considered eliminating funding for cloud-seeding, but eventually > included $153,520 in their 2005 budget for cloud-seeding flights and an > independent evaluation of previous efforts (12). > In 2007, the EAA approved cloud seeding efforts for the ninth year in a > row, and for the first time the program included a method to statistically > evaluate the project’s effectiveness. Four Board members voted against > continuing the program, saying there was evidence that cloud seeding could > actually decrease rainfall by accident, and they also had concerns about > the EAA paying for scientific studies to investigate something the National > Academy had already concluded doesn’t work. > The Edwards Aquifer – Cloud > Seeding<http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf> The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are further blurred here <http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/geoengineering-projects.html>: *Bill Gates, the Hurricane Tamer?* | Link<http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Science/story?id=8055781&page=1#.UL7SMoPAd8E> *Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes* | Link<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1566898/Scientists-a-step-closer-to-steering-hurricanes.html> > It's the ultimate man vs. nature face-off. Bill Gates, one of the most > powerful men on the planet, appears to be taking on one of Mother Earth's > most fearsome forces: the hurricane. *The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres* | Link<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/04/stephen-salter-tyre-hurricane-sandy> > British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent > scheme<http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/wxmod-patents.html#gatez>to prevent huge storms *United States Patent Application 20090177569 | Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods* | Link <http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0177569.html> > Inventors: > Bowers, Jeffrey A. (Kirkland, WA, US) > Caldeira, Kenneth G. (Campbell, CA, US) > Chan, Alistair K. (Stillwater, MN, US) > Gates III, William H. (Redmond, WA, US) > Hyde, Roderick A. (Redmond, WA, US) > Ishikawa, Muriel Y. (Livermore, CA, US) > Kare, Jordin T. (Seattle, WA, US) > Latham, John (Boulder, CO, US) > Myhrvold, Nathan P. (Medina, WA, US) > Salter, Stephen H. (Edinburgh, GB) > Tegreene, Clarence T. (Bellevue, WA, US) > Wood Jr., Lowell L. (Bellevue, WA, US) Reducing hurricane intensity using arrays of Atmocean Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps | Video Link <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlnR_GMNIGA> > 17th Joint Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather > Modification/Weather Modification Association Annual Meeting (20-25 April > 2008) > New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm > Reducing hurricane intensity by cooling the upper mixed layer using arrays > of Atmocean, Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumps > https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139127.htm > Philip W. Kithil, Atmocean, Inc., Santa Fe, NM; and I. Ginis > Most climate scientists now agree that global warming will increase the > intensity of tropical cyclones. It is natural to ask if any technology is > able to weaken these increasingly powerful storms before landfall. Given > that hurricane tracking forecasts are accurate only a few days ahead, could > the technology be correctly positioned soon enough? Would the storm veer > off, hitting a different region? What are the unintended environmental > consequences? Is any approach technically feasible and make sense from an > economics perspective? > Hurricane intensity is strongly linked to upper ocean heat content. > Mathematical models show that arrays of Atmocean's wave-driven upwelling > pumps could cool the upper ocean by up to several degrees C., reducing the > evaporative energy to the hurricane, and lowering peak winds by 5% to 20%. > Since hurricane wind damages are proportional to the cube of windspeed, > this reduction in peak wind suggests that losses caused by high winds could > be reduced up to 50%. Additional savings could accrue if the storm surge is > lessened, thereby reducing losses caused by flooding. > By relying on wave kinetic energy as the power source, the Atmocean > wave-driven upwelling pumps naturally self-calibrate due to the much larger > waves generated by a storm. > Atmocean's upwelling arrays would be positioned beginning at 250 meters > depth along the Gulf and East coast, and extend seaward in a band about 150 > km wide. > If Atmocean arrays had been in position ten years ago, our storm track > analysis shows they could have intercepted and quite likely reduced the > intensity of 84% of US-landfalling hurricanes. Here we have several well known names inventing a "storm protection system" that sells protection to investors. This is also relevant due to the following comments from NOAA<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/noaa_letter_dhs_hurricane_modification.pdf>on modifying hurricanes: > Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane > Aerosol and Microphysics Program > (HAMP<https://ams.confex.com/ams/29Hurricanes/techprogram/session_24276.htm>) > worked with Project > Stormfury<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_stormfury>veteran Joe Golden > and a panel of other experts “to test the effects of > aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.” HAMP was funded > under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million. > In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric > Administration’s (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic > and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced > Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official > memorandum<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/noaa_letter_dhs_hurricane_modification.pdf> > regarding > OAR’s review of a “Statement for Work” for HAMP. “*While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring > through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research > that entails efforts to modify hurricanes*,” Spinrad wrote. > *He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was > discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in > hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature’s > inherent unpredictability overall.* Spinrad also noted that any > collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA’s mission (which Spinrad and > NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do). > NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization > responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes. Recent budget cuts are > expected to hit NOAA’s satellite program, the heart of the organization’s > weather forecasting system, by $182 > million<http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/lifestyles/opinion/budget-cuts-may-ground-noaa-weather-satellite-prog/nRFLR/> > . > Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification > programs as if its general, accepted knowledge. Although DHS was turned > down, the agency moved > ahead<http://weathermodification.org/Park%20City%20Presentations/DC%20Program%20Review.pdf>with > their research without NOAA’s participation. Even NOAA has learned from history. NOAA, the AMS, WMO, and NRC are all saying the same thing, there are too many unknown variables, and large scale experimentation should not be done. Bill Gates and company are making pumps for the gulf of Mexico to mitigate hurricanes even though NOAA wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. The Weather Modification Association operates cloud seeding/hail mitigation operations <http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/cloud-seeding.html> daily all over the USA. The Chinese<http://www.disclose.tv/forum/playing-for-god-s-weather-modification-in-china-50-years-t19855.html>and Russians<http://www.infowars.com/russia-attacks-clouds-to-clear-sky-for-city-day-celebration/>also have a long history of controlling their weather<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549366/How-we-made-the-Chernobyl-rain.html>. Yet I would argue the butterfly effect of so many hands in the cookie jar <http://goo.gl/maps/iZy2S>nets an even more uncontrollable system. When Texas seeded clouds meet a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico above the aforementioned upwelling pumps, and Bob payed Bill Gates inc to protect his oil fields, will that hurricane now hit Tom? Will the hurricane become stonger or weaker. Since there is no way to know, will Tom be able to sue Bill for making a hurricane change course? I am merely an observer in all this. I do not understand all of the why for's and how to's but I do see a pattern emerging which worries me, and I don't think the public would approve of any of this. It is commonly argued this way: Geoengineering the Climate | Link<http://rezn8d.com/wxmod/geoengineering-the-climate.html> “So, there is indeed a history of *asking whether “the local inhabitants > would be in favor of such schemes,” *despite Fleming’s argument, and the > answer, to my reading of the thin literature, is *“Yes.”* The simple > persistence today of literally hundreds of cloud seeding projects in the > U.S. and elsewhere suggests that despite anecdote and wary cloud seeders, > no implacable opposition has emerged.” I would argue that most people would vehemently disapprove of men controlling weather. Even Donald Duck<http://www.slidefinder.net/1/11_12_donald_duck/32113700>and the Smurfs understood that <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-Dz2ZJVrU0> weather control might be a bad idea. > Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale > or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, > ionization methods, *GEOENGINEERING -ed.*) and should be treated with > suspicion" ~WMO The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are imaginary ones. Therefore I ask you: How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/amVJ-V1vXQEJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
