Aquiess & Sciblue Inc - Dubious claims about rainmaking technology

[Mick West]

Great example, as clearly, the indians understood weather better than we do, they observed it daily, and wouldn't waste time burning stuff and chanting if it did not work. The main point I like to make is, neither you, nor I, nor the smartest scientists in the world know the first damn thing about how the weather works.

Yes we do, we know a vast amount about the weather, both from years of observation and from access to science that was not available to the indians. We have a strong understanding of the physical processes involved (convection, conduction, radiation, evaporation, condensation, etc.), and we are able to predict weather patterns with considerable confidence.

 

[SR1419]

Have you no evidence on Sciblue or David Kutchinski's "weather resonance technology"?

Whatever technology SciBlue and/or Kutchinski used in Texas, it didn't work.

This is what George Bomar- who oversees licensing for Texas weather mod projects said (the "General" is Kutchinski)

Indeed, their attempts to bring water to far West Texas is, to say the least, controversial. It was a struggle getting the General et al. set up (license, permit) to operate, one reason (among many) being the secretive nature of their operation. When he appeared before our advisory panel last November, he was questioned heavily (mostly by me) about his proposed methodology, remarking at one point that his team did not need any meteorologist. It was at our insistence that he add to his team someone with meteorological/climatological expertise that led to TAMU's involvement–for which I was very appreciative.

I am eager to read your blogs–and get your perspective on their efforts. Feel free to use anything I've written about conventional cloud-seeding–or the role of TDLR in regulating the use of alternative technologies.

As for the early Spring rain event in the Permian Basin and Pecos River valley… I told the investment coordinator early on that they had picked an area (west of the Pecos) and time (early Spring) when rains of 2 to 4 inches were extremely rare. In other words, if they wanted a backdrop against which to "prove" their technology worked, they chose an optimal setting in which to do so. (Your early advisories about 1 in 10,000 chance of a big rain event suggested the same.) So, the T-storm event around Big Spring in early March was a bit of an eye-raiser, but that area is a long way from the target area. To me, the Big Spring event was due to movement of the dry line, unusual yes but hardly epochal. They kept talking of a "bubble" that precluded their intrusion west of the Pecos, to dump a significant amount of rain into the basin.

They then moved their focus eastward, to the site of wildfires between Fort Worth and Abilene, and Abilene and San Angelo. When they claimed success in fomenting thunderstorm rains to help put out two major fires in those areas, I asked for details on when, and where, they had operated. As with other aspects of their overall operation, I got very limited information. When I requested the tail number(s) of their aircraft, I got silence. They had pressed the Governor's Office to get reimbursement for hours flown (and that Office was giving the request some consideration), but I insisted that the State would need more explicit information (including receipts for fuel purchased) before the request would even be considered.

I've been asked by the General what can be done to enable the group to succeed at getting financial support for future endeavors. I have stressed the need to be much more disclosing. That was several weeks ago, and I seem to have lost contact with them. Their weather modification license expires 8.31.11, so I will wait to see if they choose to renew.

This is what John Neilson-Gammon- UT meteorologist who was hired to verify any success of Sciblue's efforts said:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/07/diary-entry-the-last-word/

I kept a log of my personal experiences doing the weather modification verification, which I plan to post on my blog. Since I was unable to record any objective evidence of success with your efforts, I will not include your name, the name of your company, or the exact dates in my posts. However, I would like to give you the last word.

So, there IS evidence...evidence that it doesn't work.

John NG kept a diary of his experience with SciBlue- pretty interesting read:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/category/weather/page/2/

 

[Cairenn]

I wonder if some of the problem is that there is a confusion in understanding the difference between weather and space weather?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weather

Space weather is the concept of changing environmental conditions in near-Earth space[1] or the space from the Sun's atmosphere to the Earth's atmosphere. It is distinct from the concept of weather within the Earth's planetary atmosphere (troposphere and stratosphere). Space weather is the description of changes in the ambient plasma, magnetic fields, radiation and other matter in space. Much of space weather is driven by energy carried through interplanetary space by the solar wind from regions near the surface of the Sun and the Sun's atmosphere (chromosphere and corona).[2] The term space weather is sometimes used to refer to changes in interplanetary (and occasionally interstellar) space.

 

[lotek]

Great example, as clearly, the indians understood weather better than we do, they observed it daily, and wouldn't waste time burning stuff and chanting if it did not work.

What the fuck?!

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Originally Posted by rezn8d
Great example, as clearly, the indians understood weather better than we do, they observed it daily, and wouldn't waste time burning stuff and chanting if it did not work. The main point I like to make is, neither you, nor I, nor the smartest scientists in the world know the first damn thing about how the weather works.

That is silly. Indians had no special knowledge and weren't without human failures. No different from chemtrail believers, they had all sorts of very harmful beliefs. They used human sacrifice for weather modification, Jim.

 

[rezn8d]

That is silly. Indians had no special knowledge and weren't without human failures. No different from chemtrail believers, they had all sorts of very harmful beliefs. They used human sacrifice for weather modification, Jim.

I heard Algonquins' made hella good CCN. We understand a lot about the universe, yet we more than likely know less than 1% of the big picture. I imagine our climate is the same. Many speculate, formulate, and theorize, yet they are really on the precipice of understanding the macro side of weather, let alone the micro.

 

[solrey]

I heard Algonquins' made hella good CCN. We understand a lot about the universe, yet we more than likely know less than 1% of the big picture. I imagine our climate is the same. Many speculate, formulate, and theorize, yet they are really on the precipice of understanding the macro side of weather, let alone the micro.

That's just silly and says a lot about your own lack of understanding.

Here's an example from today to demonstrate the level of understanding professional meteorologists and volunteer spotters like myself possess...

The dynamics of the weather we had today that produced a few thunderstorms was in the forecast discussion four days ago. In the meantime, the forecast became more detailed and with higher confidence. I, being a spotter and all, kept an eye on moderate convection and some turbulence while out and about in town in the early afternoon, wondering if we'd dodge the rain so I could do some gardening and pruning. Around 4:30 we heard a couple of claps of thunder and had some brief moderate to heavy rain. Right after the rain passed, it was still springkling a bit but hey it's Oregon that's how we roll, my gf and I were out admiring a nice rainbow and cool looking clouds. I noticed some gentle low level inflow of clouds into an area almost directly overhead, so I kept an eye on it as it persisted in the same spot to see if the obvious convection resulted in further development. There were a couple of other adjacent cumulus cells as well. As I was talking to my gf while she was taking some macro photos in the garden, I noticed some scud clouds in what appeared to be counterclockwise rotation, with surrounding inflow. I watched it for a few minutes and my gf and I confirmed that there was definite rotation at least half a mile in diameter in the cloud base. I confirmed 2 or 3 cells in that location on radar as I was calling a report into the NWS. Neither I nor the meteorologist I spoke to were concerned about tornadic development due to limited convective potential, which I had noted in the not so high tops of cumulus clouds, but potential for damaging hail and microburst winds were definitely possible. He mentioned that rotation sometimes occurs with interacting convective cells. About 15 minutes later an advisory was issued for a strong storm because it pretty much developed as expected. Without a high degree of understanding of the dynamics of the atmosphere the accuracy of the forecast nor the discussion between a professional and volunteer could have occurred. You've been blindly cherry picking stuff off the net for a couple of years and to be honest, you sir are an insult to my intelligence.

 

[Pete Tar]

...

Pure poetry.

 

[Cairenn]

I am afraid that when most folks hear 'meteorologist' they think about the guy or gal on their local TV station, without realizing the difference. I know that they have tightened up requirements the last few years.

We have learned so much in my lifetime. We can often have a good idea of major storms a week or more in advance. Now that is for a general area, not for your backyard. How ever I can remember when some storms would hit almost without notice.

 

[ssfor27]

Great example, as clearly, the indians understood weather better than we do, they observed it daily, and wouldn't waste time burning stuff and chanting if it did not work. The main point I like to make is, neither you, nor I, nor the smartest scientists in the world know the first damn thing about how the weather works.

Really? I want to relay something that has stuck with me ever since it happened. I was in Wichita, Kansas, in the Air Force, in late April of 1991 when the Andover, Kansas F5 tornado struck. It was the most powerful and deadly of 55 tornadoes that were recorded in the plains states that day. 2 days before the outbreak the forecasts coming out were for a high risk of severe weather that evening for south central Kansas and northern Oklahoma. The Weather Channel was so sure that the Wichita area would be ground zero for the upcoming bad weather that they sent 2 teams of storm reporters to the city to capture the event. The forecasts were spot on. The worst of the weather did indeed descend upon the Wichita area, including the Andover F5. That was in 1991 - 22 years ago - so how could those forecasters have been so sure about the forthcoming weather if nobody knows the first thing about how weather works?

On a more personal note, I spent 4 1/2 years at the weather service office in Salt Lake City, UT. I did a lot of hiking and 4X4 off roading in the southern part of the state when I was there. Before every trip I would get a personal weather forecast from one of the meteorologists at the office as there can often be a concern for flash flooding in Utah in the summer. I was amazed at how often they not only were accurate forecasts, but often times spot on hour for hour.

A more accurate and certainly fair statement would be to say we still have an incredible and probably never ending amount to learn about our planet's weather. But to say we do not know the first thing about weather is a bit of a reach.

 

[Joe]

I heard Algonquins' made hella good CCN. We understand a lot about the universe, yet we more than likely know less than 1% of the big picture. I imagine our climate is the same. Many speculate, formulate, and theorize, yet they are really on the precipice of understanding the macro side of weather, let alone the micro.

Nice job Jim [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]http://www.terraforminginc.com/weather-control/

 

[Cairenn]

Weather modification=cloud seeding

The other stuff has never been shown to work---

 

[Met Watch]

I heard Algonquins' made hella good CCN. We understand a lot about the universe, yet we more than likely know less than 1% of the big picture. I imagine our climate is the same. Many speculate, formulate, and theorize, yet they are really on the precipice of understanding the macro side of weather, let alone the micro.

Explain to me, then, how meteorologists were able to recognize conditions favorable for long-tracked and damaging tornadoes, very large hail, and widespread damaging winds across the Tennessee and Ohio Valleys, as well as the Gulf Coast - 7 days before the actual event occurred (April 27th, 2011). Was it magic, or just a lucky guess, or because they had enough meteorological knowledge to make an educated forecast?

 

[rezn8d]

Weather modification=cloud seeding

The other stuff has never been shown to work---

Geoengineering SRM is weather modification as cloud seeding intends to alter rainfall, geoengineering intends to alter temperature.

 

[Mick West]

Geoengineering SRM is weather modification as cloud seeding intends to alter rainfall, geoengineering intends to alter temperature.

Weather is LOCAL and BRIEF

Climate is GLOBAL and LONG TERM

Weather modification alters the weather.

Geoengineering alters the climate.

 

[Cairenn]

The temperature part is still mostly theoretical. It is unproven.

 

[rezn8d]

Explain to me, then, how meteorologists were able to recognize conditions favorable for long-tracked and damaging tornadoes, very large hail, and widespread damaging winds across the Tennessee and Ohio Valleys, as well as the Gulf Coast - 7 days before the actual event occurred (April 27th, 2011). Was it magic, or just a lucky guess, or because they had enough meteorological knowledge to make an educated forecast?

My comment was one part comedy, one part common sense. Particularly, I was speaking to the geoengineers who claim to be able to predict global rain patterns and future climates, and intend to alter weather globally, even though much debate about cloud seeding remains after 50 years of use.

This thread has devolved into a cherry-picking fest. For two pages I engaged in a semi-discussion about Sciblue and Kutchinski, only to end with weathermen bragging about how much they know. Do any of you even have an opinion when it comes to things like geoengineering SRM? Or do you sit back and ignore the myriad of things there are that need urgent attention, whilst you bicker over verbiage? I maintain that your community is a negative one, that does a disservice to all by focusing on the negative.

While you intend to better the world by disproving conspiracies, you waste your time and energy on people who are marginalized to begin with, while doing nothing about real problems.

The world is polluted, everyone is corrupt, and none of you seem to care.

There are obvious misinfo/disinfo regimes on YouTube etal, however you guys attack any Tom, Dick, or Harry that enters your "categories of opportunity" . EX: John Massaria's big mistake of using a ballast tank image... you're a bunch of bullies, sick.

I'm sure you'll all have a good time with this post, like sharks to chummed water, cause that's exactly what you are, sharks.
I came here in good faith, in an honest attempt to have discourse with your community, only to have my intelligence insulted time and time again, a mistake I will not make again.

Can any of you link me an article or anything you posted online where you either exposed something you found to be illegal/immoral/wrong, or spoke out against an injustice in the world? Would make you seem more human, to me at least.

 

[rezn8d]

Weather is LOCAL and BRIEF

Climate is GLOBAL and LONG TERM

Weather modification alters the weather.

Geoengineering alters the climate.

ENMOD banned what?

The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (Geneva: 18 May 1977, Entered into force: 5 October 1978) prohibits "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury".[1]​ However it has been argued that this permits "local, non-permanent changes".

Geoengineering SRM falls in this category [1]

 

[Cairenn]

So pointing out folks falling for hoaxes and wasting their money is not 'helpful' to you? I feel that those that ROB others, whether with a gun or a fear monger hoax to be doing an injustice.

There is a thread about threats to planes, pilots and radar stations. Bringing down a plane would be illegal and immoral. So would shooting folks.

I see this site as being an important clearing house for FACTS instead of rumors. That is doing RIGHT in the world.

It is unfortunate that you seem to feel that that is not so.

 

[rezn8d]

So pointing out folks falling for hoaxes and wasting their money is not 'helpful' to you? I feel that those that ROB others, whether with a gun or a fear monger hoax to be doing an injustice.

There is a thread about threats to planes, pilots and radar stations. Bringing down a plane would be illegal and immoral. So would shooting folks.

I see this site as being an important clearing house for FACTS instead of rumors. That is doing RIGHT in the world.

It is unfortunate that you seem to feel that that is not so.

Either you are an educated perception manager or you are think I am a fool. I did not make the statement you just made, and of course those are bad things. However, people choose to buy fear-porn because they are addicted to it. Surely you can find a better "evil" target.

 

[Mick West]

Calm down Jim. You've got the wrong end of the stick.

I think everyone here means well, so lets have a civil discussion, okay?