• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Weird Weather

Some guy on local radio a few days back claimed we have had 5.2 ft 1584.96 mm
for the last 2 years, everything is so sodden that a small amount of rain is all it
takes to flood many roads.
 
RaM said:
Some guy on local radio a few days back claimed we have had 5.2 ft 1584.96 mm
for the last 2 years, everything is so sodden that a small amount of rain is all it
takes to flood many roads.
Click to expand...
I was flicking through the local news pages and Devon (I think it was) have said that they are pretty hopeful that there won't be a hosepipe ban this year.
I wouldn't hold my breath though.
 
RaM said:
Some guy on local radio a few days back claimed we have had 5.2 ft 1584.96 mm
for the last 2 years, everything is so sodden that a small amount of rain is all it
takes to flood many roads.
Click to expand...
That's our districts trans-evaporation rate for a year here. (1600mm)
 
RaM said:
Some US states according to news are trying to ban weather modification,
are they realising that screwing with nature is not a good thing?
Click to expand...
In the '60s I read in a Batman comic (The Parasols of Plunder) about the hero causing rain by flying a light aircraft through clouds and scattering silver iodide on them.
The substance looked like rectangular shards of silver foil. Blew my little mind. :chuckle:

As usual when I tried to discuss this at school I was dismissed as a fantasist. :dunno:

The comic was from the early 1950s so the weather modification was well-known back then.

Anyway, as you were.
 
escargot said:
In the '60s I read in a Batman comic (The Parasols of Plunder) about the hero causing rain by flying a light aircraft through clouds and scattering silver iodide on them.
The substance looked like rectangular shards of silver foil. Blew my little mind. :chuckle:

As usual when I tried to discuss this at school I was dismissed as a fantasist. :dunno:

The comic was from the early 1950s so the weather modification was well-known back then.

Anyway, as you were.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of what used to be sci-fi ideas that have since become reality many decades later. Still haven't got the Jetson's car
 
escargot said:
In the '60s I read in a Batman comic (The Parasols of Plunder) about the hero causing rain by flying a light aircraft through clouds and scattering silver iodide on them.
The substance looked like rectangular shards of silver foil. Blew my little mind. :chuckle:

As usual when I tried to discuss this at school I was dismissed as a fantasist. :dunno:

The comic was from the early 1950s so the weather modification was well-known back then.

Anyway, as you were.
Click to expand...
Queensland, Australia, started cloud seeding in 1947...well, they would, wouldn't they.
 
Dubai got a reported 18 months worth of rain in one day

Highest since records started in 1949.

1713355503658.png
 
Both the Lynmouth and the UAE events were the result of large-scale systems which couldn’t have resulted from cloud seeding, which at best - and this is disputed - works on a local level.
Although rare, the mechanisms are well understood and the phenomenal rainfall can be accounted for without resort to hocus pocus with silver iodide. The Dubai rainfall was accurately forecast and warnings were issued.
 
Floyd said:
But why are the headlines continually saying chaos at the airport and disaster?

It's some people at an (air conditioned) airport having to wait a bit for a plane.
I've had to do that.
Click to expand...
Look at the vids/pics - it’s not just at an airport. A year’s worth of of rain in one day is unusual wouldn’t you say? People have died. Tabloid headlines often don’t reflect the actuality.

You might have had to wait for a plane but was it because of a storm dumping a year of rain in a day?
 
Isn't the mechanics of cloud seeding, using an agent to trigger the moisture already inherent in the clouds? It doesn't actually increase the residual moisture of the cloud seeded, does it?
 
Mungoman said:
Isn't the mechanics of cloud seeding, using an agent to trigger the moisture already inherent in the clouds? It doesn't actually increase the residual moisture of the cloud seeded, does it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, cloud seeding doesn't actually work well, if at all. So the claim that it is causal is ridiculous.
 
hunck said:
Look at the vids/pics - it’s not just at an airport. A year’s worth of of rain in one day is unusual wouldn’t you say? People have died. Tabloid headlines often don’t reflect the actuality.

You might have had to wait for a plane but was it because of a storm dumping a year of rain in a day?
Click to expand...
Yes it's certainly unusual for that area.

Flash flooding does happen in hot, dry countries because the ground cannot soak the water up quickly enough (and drainage isn't as good as it perhaps should be).

Same as here now- more flooding, but that's because of a lot more blocked road grids (where I live anyway).

But chaos and disaster? No, not really.
 
Floyd said:
Yes it's certainly unusual for that area.

Flash flooding does happen in hot, dry countries because the ground cannot soak the water up quickly enough (and drainage isn't as good as it perhaps should be).

Same as here now- more flooding, but that's because of a lot more blocked road grids (where I live anyway).

But chaos and disaster? No, not really.
Click to expand...
I would think that if we got a year's worth of precipitation in a day, it would lead to chaos.

Dubai is desert. It has no drainage system in place nor flood control measures as it is arid. No place for the water to go.

It is kind of like (tongue in cheek) when UK gets several cms of snow and things shut down. Here, we might put on a scarf.:)
 
Mungoman said:
Isn't the mechanics of cloud seeding, using an agent to trigger the moisture already inherent in the clouds? It doesn't actually increase the residual moisture of the cloud seeded, does it?
Click to expand...
From what I've read large scale weather modification is allegedly done by heating up areas of the atmosphere. Whether or not that is true, I don't really know except I've read the same thing in many different articles and publications over the years. I also once a good few years ago watched a video of a committee hearing in the US (I don't know how their system works) of a high ranking military officer answering questions to congress woman wherein he admitted weather modification is done that way.

As @Mungoman posted, cloud seeding as far as my understanding goes is very hit and miss and dependant on pre existing atmospheric conditions.
 
kesavaross said:
From what I've read large scale weather modification is allegedly done by heating up areas of the atmosphere. Whether or not that is true, I don't really know except I've read the same thing in many different articles and publications over the years. I also once a good few years ago watched a video of a committee hearing in the US (I don't know how their system works) of a high ranking military officer answering questions to congress woman wherein he admitted weather modification is done that way.

As @Mungoman posted, cloud seeding as far as my understanding goes is very hit and miss and dependant on pre existing atmospheric conditions.
Click to expand...

Here’s my usual request - link! How is heating of the atmosphere acheived?
 
brownmane said:
I would think that if we got a year's worth of precipitation in a day, it would lead to chaos.

Dubai is desert. It has no drainage system in place nor flood control measures as it is arid. No place for the water to go.

It is kind of like (tongue in cheek) when UK gets several cms of snow and things shut down. Here, we might put on a scarf.:)
Click to expand...
I would imagine that a sandy desert would be a massive re-charge area for somewhere else, and that all sitting water would percolate down through the sand until it arrives at an impermeable strata
 
hunck said:
Here’s my usual request - link! How is heating of the atmosphere acheived?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Is that clear enough?

I used the word allegedly for a reason and I deliberately used that word. I read a lot of articles from various publications. Some are pay per view, some are found on the dark web, some are from magazines. I don't bother with Google because that is heavily censored. I stated I watched an interview from a senate committee years ago. I remember it or is my memory wrong because I have no link?

If I was to bookmark everything I come across on the internet, etc, I'd have thousands and thousands and thousands of bookmarks. Some of those would be to the dark web and even given the lies about the dark web, not the deep web though, would you look at them?

Do you bookmark everything you come across on the internet just in case you are asked for a link? How can I bookmark something of interest I come across in a magazine that is now in the bin?

Anyway, a link can then be questioned which would then require more links to support and so on. Anything can be questioned. It's like a small child to what ever the adult says then saying 'why?' That 'why' question than can go on forever with no conclusion. Most parents have experienced that.

Why don't you look into it yourself? Why don't you do your own research? You never seem to answer that question? I do, so can you. Why are you constantly and seemingly going after what I post on these 'on the edge' topics? I never state 'I know for a fact'.

Please, just stop it. You don't seem to do it to any other members. Sometimes I post certain stuff and I now expect the question from you. Like this time, I guessed correctly. Please, ask questions apart from 'give me a link', that is fine with me. I will answer to the best of my ability. I don't and never intend to deceive or make stuff up or lie.
 
Last edited:
Mungoman said:
I would imagine that a sandy desert would be a massive re-charge area for somewhere else, and that all sitting water would percolate down through the sand until it arrives at an impermeable strata
Click to expand...
I had heard, in relation to this weather event, that regular amount of precipitation is usually just evaporated with the heat. In this case, though, evaporation wouldn't work due to the amount. I don't know if this is true since I don't remember who I was talking to. It was not an article, it was just a conversation.
 
kesavaross said:
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Is that clear enough?

I used the word allegedly for a reason and I deliberately used that word. I read a lot of articles from various publications. Some are pay per view, some are found on the dark web, some are from magazines. I don't bother with Google because that is heavily censored. I stated I watched an interview from a senate committee years ago. I remember it or is my memory wrong because I have no link?

If I was to bookmark everything I come across on the internet, etc, I'd have thousands and thousands and thousands of bookmarks. Some of those would be to the dark web and even given the lies about the dark web, not the deep web though, would you look at them?

Do you bookmark everything you come across on the internet just in case you are asked for a link? How can I bookmark something of interest I come across in a magazine that is now in the bin?

Anyway, a link can then be questioned which would then require more links to support and so on. Anything can be questioned. It's like a small child to what ever the adult says then saying 'why?' That 'why' question than can go on forever with no conclusion. Most parents have experienced that.

Why don't you look into it yourself? Why don't you do your own research? You never seem to answer that question? I do, so can you. Why are you constantly and seemingly going after what I post on these 'on the edge' topics? I never state 'I know for a fact'.

Please, just stop it. You don't seem to do it to any other members. Sometimes I post certain stuff and I now expect the question from you. Like this time, I guessed correctly. Please, ask questions apart from 'give me a link', that is fine with me. I will answer to the best of my ability. I don't and never intend to deceive or make stuff up or lie.
Click to expand...
I'm going to totally agree with @hunck here. Making a specious comment with no followup gives anyone a reasonable opening to ask where you got that idea. It is not rude to ask for justification, particularly about an extraordinary claim. More people should do it. No one bookmarks everything but it's not hard to google and come up with a link. The problem with rampant misinformation today is everyone saying "I heard that...." and providing NO credible source for it.

I suspect you are talking about HAARP conspiracy nonsense. In that case, it's bogus anyway.
But one way proposed to heat the atmosphere is microwaves https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/139228.pdf
(It took me about 3 minutes to find that paper via google.)
 
kesavaross said:
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Is that clear enough?

I used the word allegedly for a reason and I deliberately used that word. I read a lot of articles from various publications. Some are pay per view, some are found on the dark web, some are from magazines. I don't bother with Google because that is heavily censored. I stated I watched an interview from a senate committee years ago. I remember it or is my memory wrong because I have no link?

If I was to bookmark everything I come across on the internet, etc, I'd have thousands and thousands and thousands of bookmarks. Some of those would be to the dark web and even given the lies about the dark web, not the deep web though, would you look at them?

Do you bookmark everything you come across on the internet just in case you are asked for a link? How can I bookmark something of interest I come across in a magazine that is now in the bin?

Anyway, a link can then be questioned which would then require more links to support and so on. Anything can be questioned. It's like a small child to what ever the adult says then saying 'why?' That 'why' question than can go on forever with no conclusion. Most parents have experienced that.

Why don't you look into it yourself? Why don't you do your own research? You never seem to answer that question? I do, so can you. Why are you constantly and seemingly going after what I post on these 'on the edge' topics? I never state 'I know for a fact'.

Please, just stop it. You don't seem to do it to any other members. Sometimes I post certain stuff and I now expect the question from you. Like this time, I guessed correctly. Please, ask questions apart from 'give me a link', that is fine with me. I will answer to the best of my ability. I don't and never intend to deceive or make stuff up or lie.
Click to expand...

I’m just questioning things - that’s all. If we didn’t question things we’d believe all sorts of stuff wouldn’t we.
 
Sharon Hill said:
I'm going to totally agree with @hunck here. Making a specious comment with no followup gives anyone a reasonable opening to ask where you got that idea. It is not rude to ask for justification, particularly about an extraordinary claim. More people should do it. No one bookmarks everything but it's not hard to google and come up with a link. The problem with rampant misinformation today is everyone saying "I heard that...." and providing NO credible source for it.

I suspect you are talking about HAARP conspiracy nonsense. In that case, it's bogus anyway.
But one way proposed to heat the atmosphere is microwaves https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/139228.pdf
(It took me about 3 minutes to find that paper via google.)
Click to expand...
I did mention I used the word allegedly. That means it may not be factual per say. I explained where I got the information from and no it's not rude to ask for some form of justification to what you see as an extraordinary claim. I can't give that. I went part way to explain why.

You found that paper in a three minute search on Google. Firstly, Google is highly censored and the search results will be highly limited. Secondly, classified and or declassified information is not so easy to find. Thirdly, quite often I find information from one source is confirmed by other sources that may not be entirely internet based but have some aspects may be internet based. Fourthly, along with many researchers, investigative journalist, university students, etc, I use the dark web simply because it's not indexed. I am definitely not going to post any link to that and fifth, some of what I read or watch, etc, is in with political content so I'm not going to post a link to that either as per forum rules.

Anyone can do their own research.

So it's all bogus and nonsense. How exactly do you know for certain that is so without seriously looking into it? Also, define a credible source? I'm not intending to be rude by asking that. Frequently, many say ta view point is rubbish having done no proper research but simply go by what Google gives them as a search result, what the MSM tells them and by what they think is so. Very few can simple say I don't know if that is true or not.

With all things Fortean and paranormal, there is no proof. There is discussion, research, enquiry, view points, consensus or not, and so on. For instance amongst other subject matters, I really enjoy all things time slip. Again there is no proof. No link can give a definitive answer and we all accept that. Yet with some other subjects, that principle goes out the window and it becomes, to quote your words, bogus and nonsense. Again I have no desire to sound rude. Far from it. I just can't find better words to be more diplomatic and that is my failing. My point is that maybe we need to apply the same rules to other subject matters that are not Fortean or paranormal and look into them in a similar manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top