China Is Splashing $168 Million To Make It Rain (fortune.com) 118
China, the world's second largest economy, is pouring 1.5 billion yuan ($168 million) into a program aimed at making it rain in its usually arid northwestern region. From a report: No stranger to using technologies like cloud seeding to influence and even control weather patterns, China's top economic planners recently gave the go ahead for what will be one of the country's largest weather-modification projects, reports the South China Morning Post. According to the Post, a feasibility study by the country's meteorological agency concluded that the three-year program could see a rise in precipitation over an area of 960,000 sq km, or as much as 10% of the country's landmass. The multi-million dollar budget allocated by the National Development and Reform Commission will reportedly cover the cost for four new aircraft and updates to eight existing planes, nearly 900 rocket launch systems and over 1,800 digital control devices.
That's great.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except what about the countries where that rain would otherwise have landed? Not such a problem if it would have landed over sea, but this will be in the middle of the continent. Not a very nice neighbour to have.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, this is a case where I kind of miss the old "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag.
Re: (Score:2)
or more like "blub blub" [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
to be fair, playing with seeding in an area that gets a lot of rain is like pouring alcohol on a fire. May put it out or may explode or may work, depending on type and how poured :)
Re:That's great.. (Score:5, Informative)
The prevailing winds in mid to northern China blow in from the west and head out to sea. The places that will get less rainfall will be along their own east coast.
Re: (Score:3)
The prevailing winds in mid to northern China blow in from the west and head out to sea. The places that will get less rainfall will be along their own east coast.
The east coast has plenty of rain, so that will be a good trade off. Also, the west has much higher elevation, so rain falling there can generate hydropower as it flows eastward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pumping water from one place to another can result in a tremendous loss due to evaporation, especially on sunny days. Trying to make it artificially rain is probably not too efficient or accurate but overall is likely less wasteful as long as it rains enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, we need to require California to desalinate water and quit stealing water from the Colorado River.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, we need to require California to desalinate water and quit stealing water from the Colorado River.
We could do that, or we could just stop subsidizing farmers growing rice in the desert.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure all the local plant and animal life agree. They definitely haven't adapted to arid or rainy conditions and will welcome the change to nicer weather.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:That's great.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a very nice neighbour to have.
With the factory expansions and environmental policies, I think that ship sailed years ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Atmospheric moisture flows require more sophistication to track and exploit; but conflict patters should be pretty similar. Good thing land wars in Asia never go poorly!
Re: (Score:2)
It's Gobi desert... (Score:5, Interesting)
A rain shadow [wikipedia.org] desert.
Any "countries where that rain would otherwise have landed" already got most of the moisture out of the air, which is why that place is a desert.
Cloud seeding is part of Chinese plan to build a Green Great Wall [wikipedia.org] to stop the spread of the desert and the sandstorms.
Which seems to be doing something, at least in the sense that it is apparently lowering the water table in the areas where trees are planted.
Or that is at least what the opposition to the forestation program claims, suggesting instead simply fencing off the area and "nurturing the land by the land itself". [theepochtimes.com]
How would that create trees in areas which were "treeless in the last several thousand years", or how would temporary fencing off prevent sandstorms (even should grassland work that way) once the fences are removed and the grasslands are once again used for cattle grazing... the article doesn't mention that.
Then again, water levels have been dropping long before forestation project started. [china.org.cn] And trees are supposed to keep the water in the ground... [psu.edu]
On the other hand, Epoch Times is more than a little a Falun Gong paper. [wikipedia.org]
I.e. Whatever Chinese government does is wrong. While whatever Falun Gong does might get them arrested and "reeducated" by the government. Or harvested. [wikipedia.org]
In any case, weather modification is being done in order to provide water for the Green Wall in the area which got desertified as the water from Shiyang River was used for irrigation upstream decades ago.
Nefarious uses? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh great, one country hacks our elections, the other rains on them to affect voter turnout.
Re: Nefarious uses? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the polls were hacked, then the election wasn't hacked.
If somebody obtains dirt on a political party through illicit means, and that dirt swayed public opinion, then that might be unfair, but it doesn't mean the election was less legitimate. People can vote any way they choose for any reason.
The DNC was hacked; not the election.
Re: (Score:1)
What, they want to shoot pollution?
Vocab Debates, El Yawno. [Re: Nefarious uses? (Score:2)
That's a matter of interpretation of words. English is ambiguous, it has nowhere near the precision of say a programming language. I tried to keep it short rather than more accurate but fastidious and verbose because most readers in this context like it that way (for good or bad).
If a country exposes internal documents from one party but NOT the other party, and creates mass fake news stories in order to influence voter decisions, that is arguabl
Re: (Score:1)
Correction:
Finished version of the second-to-last sentence: "Election" is a more general word/concept than "voting machine".
I accidentally bumped "Send" instead of "Preview".
Re: (Score:3)
...and creates mass fake news stories in order to influence voter decisions...
The things that the hack revealed about the DNC were not fake.
Re: (Score:3)
Including all that Pizza gate shit?
Re: (Score:3)
I think most people concerned about the DNC hack [wikipedia.org] are more concerned about the DNC having torpedoed Bernie Sanders' campaign so that Hilllary would win the nomination and other dirty laundry about the DNC's donors etc.
The same day, the DNC issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, stating, "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," and that the emails did not reflect the DNC's "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process."
"Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."
The New York Times wrote that the cache included "thousands of emails exchanged by Democratic officials and party fund-raisers, revealing in rarely seen detail the elaborate, ingratiating and often bluntly transactional exchanges necessary to harvest hundreds of millions of dollars from the party’s wealthy donor class
The fact that some retards created a bullshit scandal doesn't change the real issues that the hack revealed.
Oh, wait, the Pizza Gate thing wasn't a result of the DNC hack but of an unrelated hack of Pod [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Bernie was not even a registered Democrat. He should NOT expect equal treatment to a registered Democrat.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't claim it was. I invite you to read my post more carefully this time.
Re: (Score:2)
If a country exposes internal documents from one party but NOT the other party, and creates mass fake news stories in order to influence voter decisions...
I think I read that correctly.
Re: (Score:1)
The "mass fake news" was fake. But that statement says NOTHING about the accuracy of the DNC internal documents one way or another. You seem to be confusing 2 diff issues for unknown reasons.
Russia did (at least) two nefarious things: first, hacked into the DNC internal documents (or at least tried to), and second, posted mass fake news on a variety of topics in a variety of places.
Re: (Score:2)
The "mass fake news" was fake. But that statement says NOTHING about the accuracy of the DNC internal documents one way or another.
The veracity of those emails can be confirmed. Because cryptography [zerohedge.com].
Russia did (at least) two nefarious things: first, hacked into the DNC internal documents (or at least tried to)
It's not factual to assert that the hack was perpetrated by the Russians or by the Russian government [theintercept.com].
Re: (Score:1)
Again, you are mixing up two different things. I don't know how to straighten you out, I've explained it twice already. I'll let somebody else try. I fricken give up. Stay Stupid; it suits you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also wish to point out that there have been far greater "unfair" influences in past elections. When Obama was first elected he was absolutely the media darling. Since most all of the news organizations are very left leaning (http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/), one can claim there is an imbalance and unfair advantage to one political party. This was amplified even more in Obama's favor.
Trump managed to win despite being hated by the vast majority of news organizations. I li
Re: (Score:2)
the news orgs may have hated Trump, but they handed him the election nonetheless. Probably because they all assumed Hillary was going to win, and created stories accordingly, to sensationalize and get viewers instead of influence the election.
The vast majority of news coverage was about Hillary's emails and how Trump was a bad person. There was nearly no discussion on their actual policies, or attempts to get Trump to even commit to policies.
Many voters went into the voting booth having very little idea wha
Re: (Score:2)
Go Joe! (Score:3)
Oh, James! (Score:2)
Sorry, this sounds like something that SPECTRE is more likely to exploit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the Gobi Desert (Score:5, Interesting)
"Usually arid northwestern region" indeed. They'd have better luck doing what Africa is doing to combat the spread of the Sahara -- e.g. restoring grasslands.
Re: (Score:1)
It's actually the Taklamakan Desert [wikipedia.org]. The Gobi Desert [wikipedia.org] is farther east.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
California has a cloud seeding program....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That could well be true since there is a lot of resistance to cloud seeding in some areas though LA County does. Cloud seeding isn't looked on in favorable terms by a lot of the scientific community because it's not predictable and difficult to measure results.
Never worked before, will never work now (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't change the amount of water in the sky. There are always enough nucleation sites for raindrops, especially in polluted China. And $168m isn't going to change global weather patterns.
Glad to see that China is becoming more like the US. Big contractors selling snake-oil to the government.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. Like many government programs, the end goal is simply to justify spending. Never forget the business model of government: you take money from some people, you distribute some of it to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself. The key phrase, of course, is "keep the rest for yourself".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Never forget the business model of government: you take money from some people, you distribute some of it to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself. The key phrase, of course, is "keep the rest for yourself".
Not true. Often the "istribute some of it to other people" is the key point: those other people own a pet politician, and his job is to ensure a steady stream of taxpayer money to his owners. More money was given out in bank bailouts than has ever stuck to the hands of a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are always enough nucleation sites for raindrops, especially in polluted China.
China's air pollution is in the east, thousands of km from where the seeding will occur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like another opportunity to sell some snake oil to the Chinese government.
Every village in China has at least one herbal medicine shop selling REAL snake oil. Despite having an education, and an engineering degree, my Chinese wife believes it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I too find it hard to believe that there is any empirical justification for trying this. That said, I'd like to know what they think indicates this will work. I'm wondering whether they might be dealing with some kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc scenario where cloud seeding efforts coincided with changing rainfall patterns.
In any case, the place they're trying this appears to be Qinhai Province, up on the Tibetan Plateau. The population density there 7.8/km^2 -- roughly similar to Wyoming (5.97/km^2).
Re: (Score:2)
Justifications are not empirical. A justification can't be proven any more than justice can be proven to exist.
Well, you'd expect a justification to cite empirical evidence. Or have we lost the thread that badly?
Re: (Score:2)
Science is not about a priori knowledge.
Great alternative to minefields (Score:2)
Have enemy rain over enemy roads, turn them into muddy mess. Enemy tanks will stuck and sink in mud.
Imagine China doing that if they invade America http://lh5.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K... [ggpht.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if tanks were WWII technology and China had nuclear weapons and didn't give a shit what the pretty weather girl said.
Re: (Score:2)
"Make Mud - Not War" - It's been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Min
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, because if WWIII ever happens, everyone will follow all the existing international treaties. They should just sign a treaty agreeing to never engage in WWIII at all.
Re: (Score:2)
make clouds not war (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When 'they' already have very high tariffs on imports, yes it is.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the gender imbalance in that country (Score:3)
The last thing they need is for it to be raining men.
Sure thing (Score:2)
Let's fuck the world juuust a lil' bit deeper.
Atmospheric Weight (Score:1)
I'm not an expert (Score:2)
Nobody commented on this (Score:1)
To my knowledge, China is NO LONGER the world's second economy... They passed the US in 2015...
That will make for some very happy strippers.. (Score:1)
http://www.urbandictionary.com... [urbandictionary.com]
https://www.tenor.co/view/make... [tenor.co]