do you think it's a good idea? or do you think messing with the weather has long-term consequences?
example: china's anti-vampire weapons
example: china's anti-vampire weapons
bad news bears.
Do I think it's bad news? Absolutely. Do I think it will be attempted? Absolutely. We have nowhere near the understanding of weather systems and their functions to adequately monitor and control it. I'm not talking technology but a fundamental understanding of why certain things including tornados, hurricanes, etc NEED to happen.
To quote someone poorly, "When thinking on whether or not we can, it is beneficial to stop and ask if we should."
To quote someone poorly, "When thinking on whether or not we can, it is beneficial to stop and ask if we should."
Don't like the weather? Just step outside and empty a can of hairspray...(sorry)
I have seen this before...I think instead of inventing ways to control weather they should just build a roof. *genius* lol
I have seen this before...I think instead of inventing ways to control weather they should just build a roof. *genius* lol
...
The first 10 secs
It probably isn't that bad if you do it on a small scale like China are doing (they only want to affect the Beijing area), because shit is on such a large scale that this wouldn't affect it much. If you try to do it on a large scale, then yeah, you're gonna have problems.
Sounds like one of those ideas that is going to bite us in the ass in a few years time. No doubt it'll turn out that the silver iodide is radioactive...
even if this is implemented on simply a city or regional scale, this seems to epitomize the "Butterfly flaps its wings ..." scenario wouldn't you say?
china has terrible droughts too, recent ones have been worse than ever. coincidence?
It's bad, and on a unplottable scale.
Hell, the gulfstream was only discovered during WWII, we still don't know everything about the climate.
So i'd prefer it if people didn't fuck around with it.
Hell, the gulfstream was only discovered during WWII, we still don't know everything about the climate.
So i'd prefer it if people didn't fuck around with it.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
We're already fucking with it on an immense scale, something relatively small like this won't change anything.
Absolutely. Last I was aware, the most abstract and elaborate system to model is a climate model and the world's most powerful computers aren't really able to accurately keep up with it. Forgoing what we may or may not be incidentally doing to the environment, now we're going to try to willfully modify it? Hrmmm ... nothing good can come from this.FatherTed wrote:
we still don't know everything about the climate.
"By creating a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life."
Sounds nice, but just because we're butt-fucking it atm, doesn't mean we should start doing new shit to it.Mek-Izzle wrote:
We're already fucking with it on an immense scale, something relatively small like this won't change anything.
I did a geog exam on this kind of shit today, did you know the American's "produce" the most CO2 per capita.
From data taken in 2000, waaaaay more than the Chinese per head.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Did you know that 87.4% of statistics are made up on the spot?FatherTed wrote:
did you know the American's "produce" the most CO2 per capita.
From data taken in 2000, waaaaay more than the Chinese per head.
haha i'd heard that one. BUT I CANT WORK OUT IF "87.4 MADE UP BLAH BLAH" IS MADE UP ON THE SPOTPuckMercury wrote:
Did you know that 87.4% of statistics are made up on the spot?FatherTed wrote:
did you know the American's "produce" the most CO2 per capita.
From data taken in 2000, waaaaay more than the Chinese per head.
ARRRGHHHHH
*asploshun*
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
in all seriousness, i laugh my ass off at weather sites that say 50% chance of rain. that really shows how much we know about the weather.
Good, cheaper than building a giant roof other this country with holes in it over farms. That's what we need.
Would be cool to watch them fire off too.
Would be cool to watch them fire off too.
It's a known fact that Americans produce much, much more CO2 per capita than the Chinese. Yet Americans always find it convenient to bitch on them when it comes to the environment.PuckMercury wrote:
Did you know that 87.4% of statistics are made up on the spot?FatherTed wrote:
did you know the American's "produce" the most CO2 per capita.
From data taken in 2000, waaaaay more than the Chinese per head.
absolutely. We rail on about how inaccurate weather predictions are and these predictions are based on the most accurate information available. So we're throwing new technology and human error into the mix? Awesome. No ... no nothing can possibly go wrong here.steelie34 wrote:
in all seriousness, i laugh my ass off at weather sites that say 50% chance of rain. that really shows how much we know about the weather.
Indeed. Even local weather can only be predicted to about 3 days, there's just waay too many variables to take into account, and anything following three days is just a load of educated guesses or a look at previous trends.PuckMercury wrote:
absolutely. We rail on about how inaccurate weather predictions are and these predictions are based on the most accurate information available. So we're throwing new technology and human error into the mix? Awesome. No ... no nothing can possibly go wrong here.steelie34 wrote:
in all seriousness, i laugh my ass off at weather sites that say 50% chance of rain. that really shows how much we know about the weather.
I lol at 2 week weather forecasting.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I wasn't arguing for or against anything, merely commenting on the arbitrary nature of statistics when the audience doesn't know how they were arrived at.Mek-Izzle wrote:
It's a known fact that Americans produce much, much more CO2 per capita than the Chinese. Yet Americans always find it convenient to bitch on them when it comes to the environment.
Example, Jolt currently advertises that they have "4X the caffeine!!" Jolt has no more or less caffeine than a cup of coffee, a diet Coke, or Mountain Dew. They each have the same amount of caffeine in them per can/cup. This is based on results performed by myself at the collegiate level using a gas chromatograph to measure the caffeine spike in each of the liquids. Jolt is able to say what they say because it is totally unqualified. They never say what they have four times the caffeine of.
What are you on about? This technology is decades old. It was used as defense against hail. But here it seems to have been dropped because of several reasons, according to the site I'm reading:PuckMercury wrote:
absolutely. We rail on about how inaccurate weather predictions are and these predictions are based on the most accurate information available. So we're throwing new technology and human error into the mix? Awesome. No ... no nothing can possibly go wrong here.
*was ineffective because there never was a network of rocket launching sites, and the clouds move too fast. Also, because of this, an opposite effect could occur, increasing the severity of the storm.
*rockets could be a danger to civillian airplanes
*rockets misfiring, damage to objects in the area
Seems rockets were dropped everywhere it was used, and airplanes are used now instead. Effectiveness of it can be debated tho.
A document I'm looking at, says they started this in the former Soviet Union, with ground radars, rockets and all. It seems it was all based on some very shaky assumptions. And the tests they did in the 90's were mostly negative, so they shut it down. Dunno how reliable the document is, but it's on a gov site.
I'm on about a larger issue than isolated facets of weather control. I'm addressing the larger issue and concept of manipulating the weather. The fact that we've been tinkering with it for years also does not necessarily constitute experience or reliability. Furthermore, my comment of a fundamental lack of understanding of what impact simple modifications have on an incalculably complex system remains unchallenged. I'm on about that.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
What are you on about?
lol, sorry if I sounded like a smartass. I assure you that that was my intention.
I didn't know what reply of yours to quote, so I just picked one. What I wanted to say is, that I oppose your butterfly-effect theory. Since this was in use for decades, and it had no discernible worldwide effects(since effectiveness of it is disputed anyway), I see no reason why it should be problematic now.
It is nothing new.
I didn't know what reply of yours to quote, so I just picked one. What I wanted to say is, that I oppose your butterfly-effect theory. Since this was in use for decades, and it had no discernible worldwide effects(since effectiveness of it is disputed anyway), I see no reason why it should be problematic now.
It is nothing new.
again, the bulk and meat of my statements were not intended to address a particular subset but the wholistic concept of weather control. And since we don't have the technology or science to understand the state of the weather fully now, there's no way we did when we started utilizing this technology. As such, there's really no way to know one way or the other what effects may or may not have been bourne from using the techniques specifically mentioned.