Almost without fail every time there is some oddball or unique weather event, climate alarmists immediately rushed to blame it on climate change whether or not there’s any facts to support it.
Such is the case with Uber alarmist bill McKinnon founder of 350 dot org as well as “third act” and a supporter of a whole host of other rabble rouser organizations who erroneously and irrationally think climate change is going to kill us all.
Yesterday, Bill put his foot in his mouth, bigtime, as you can see in the featured image above.
His original Tweet and my reply:
Via New York Post:
Multiple reports, including Bloomberg, cited meteorologists at the country’s National Center for Meteorology saying the agency had flown six or seven cloud seeding flights in the lead-up to the storm.
Clearly, Bill is in the wrong. The question is, does he have enough integrity to tweet out to his supporters that he was wrong? That climate change had no role in this weather, not climate, event?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Here is the backstory via Newsable:
Since the 1990s, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been actively engaged in cloud seeding efforts, overseen by the National Center of Meteorology (NCM). This government agency manages the country’s Rain Enhancement Program, utilizing a network of numerous weather stations to closely monitor atmospheric conditions for seeding operations.
Seeding aircraft are deployed into clouds identified as most conducive to precipitation, where they release seeding agents to stimulate rainfall. Recent field campaigns conducted last fall involved experimenting with three distinct approaches: Nanomaterial Seeding, Large Salt Particle Seeding, and Conventional Hygroscopic Flares, as reported by the Emirates News Agency.
Ahmed Habib, a specialist meteorologist at NCM, revealed to Bloomberg that seeding planes conducted seven missions over two days leading up to the heavy rainfall that inundated parts of the desert nation. While some attributed the rare event, described as a once-in-a-century occurrence, to the weather modification technique, it’s essential to consider other atmospheric factors.
In an interview with GRAZIA Middle East, a meteorology expert from the NCM, was quoted as saying, “Whenever there are clouds in the sky, we conduct cloud seeding operations. From yesterday till today [Tuesday afternoon], we carried out six trips. There is a significant decrease in temperatures today and on Wednesday, it’s a drop of around 10 degrees Celsius.”
Meteorologist Jeff Berardelli also noted that the air was saturated with an excessive amount of desert dust when the intense rainfall occurred over Dubai. This dust, acting as a natural cloud-seeding agent, raises questions about whether man-made seeding alone can be held accountable for the deluge.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think reality and Bill McKibben are strangers.
I beg to differ. Bill McKibben is real.
a real……..for sure
Whereas dust can be a Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) which would foster cloud formation in a moist air mass, what the seeding planes were adding would’ve been freezing nuclei which would encourage already-formed cloud drops to freeze amplifying the rain formation process. Dust particles aren’t particularly good as freezing nuclei, so the anthropogenic seeding would’ve amplified rainfall chances in the seeded clouds.
McKibben, a journalist/weathervane, was cheerleading for wood burning at Middlebury College, Vermont, but, after California came out against wood burning, he flip-flopped as well.
.
Here is a ridiculous study performed by his senior students, which is totally amateurish and full of errors.
.
BUT, HEY, IT HAD GOOD NUMBERS!
.
VERMONT IS HARVESTING WOOD FAR IN EXCESS OF NET ADDED ABOVEGROUND LIVE BIOMASS
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-harvesting-wood-far-in-excess-annual-net-addition-of
.
EXCERPT
.
Middlebury College in Vermont, has an Environmental Studies Department.
The Department receives federal and state government grants and alumni bequests to perform environment-related studies
The Department held a Senior Seminar (ES 401) during the Winter of 2010 regarding the CO2 emissions of the Campus wood burning plant, and the sequestering of CO2 by the forest owned by the College.
According to the Campus wood burning plant website, the best estimate of wood chip delivery is 20,000 tons of green wood chips per year.
Incorrect CO2 Calculation
.
The seminar report states: “Thus, a more realistic estimate of carbon emissions is: 20,000, US ton of green wood x 0.50, moisture content x 44/12 x 1 = 36,667 tons of carbon”. See URL, pages 38 and 39.
This calculation is incorrect, because it did not account for the carbon content of dry wood
BTW, the word “carbon” should read “CO2”
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/255078/original/Winter_2010carbon_sequestration.pdf
.
Correct CO2 Calculation
.
The wood chips contain 20,000, US ton of green wood x 0.50, moisture content = 10,000 US ton of dry wood.
The dry wood contains 10,000 US ton of dry wood x 0.487 lb carbon/lb dry wood = 4,870 US ton of carbon.
The CO2 created by combustion is 44/12 x 4,870 = 17,857 US ton of CO2.
The report overstated the CO2 emissions by 36,667/17,856 = 2.05 times
.
Incorrect Calculation of CO2 Sequestered by the Forest
.
The report states: “Middlebury College-owned forests, 1295 ha (3200 acre), will sequester about 9,905 US ton of carbon/y, or 9905/3200 = 3.095 US ton of carbon/acre, or 44/12 x 3.095 = 11.35 US ton of CO2/acre. See URL, page 39, table 7
.
For reference: Vermont forestland, 4,511,000 acres, sequestered about 4,390,000 metricton of CO2, or 0.973 metric ton of CO2/acre, or 1.073 US ton of CO2/acre, per US Forest Service.
https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_Forest_Ecosystem/Library/Forest%20Carbon%20Inventory%20_Mar%202017_final.pdf
.
The report overstated the sequestered CO2 by 11.35/1.073 = 10.6 times
Good bye McKibben. Your time is up, like Gore and Kerry
Math is hard for liberals and alarmists.
Liberals just don’t have a ‘feel’ for it.
The problem with using math, as a tool for understanding and modeling the physical world, is that it is racist.
The peripheral problem is that the liberals, being more sensitive to that sort of thing, have to be forgiven for any emotional distraction & resulting error that ultimately occurs when they are forced to math.
You don’t need math for “climate physics.”
All you need for Alarmist Climate Science is speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions.
Plus consensus.
You do not understand. They used indigenous math. (/sarc)
Plants need 150 ppm of CO2 for photosynthesis. If the CO2 level drops below that they die and take all the animals down with them
When the oceans cool in glacial periods more CO2 can dissolve and the atmospheric level of CO2 drops
In the last glacial period, about 12,000 years ago, the CO2 level dropped to 180 ppm, only 30 ppm above the extinction level and it has been dropping in preceding glacial periods.
Glacial periods happen about every 10,000 years and it has been about 12,000 years since the last one.
The Earth’s atmosphere needs more CO2, not less.
https://pioga.org/just-the-facts-more-co2-is-good-less-is-bad
Plus CO2 dropped several hundred years after the temperature dropped, and CO2 increased several hundred years after the temperature increased, which means CO2 definitely is not a “control knob” and CO2 DEPENDS on temperature
Please tell the IPPC, because their “pseudo-scientists” claim, contra to abundant evidence, CO2 determines temperature!!, and they have the lapdog, ignoramus Mainstream Media blow its big horn to help out, keep everyone stupid.
In the Vostok cores, peak CO2 was always coincident with falling temperatures.
Peak CO2 was NEVER able to even maintain the temperature at the time.
Recent planet-saving rise in CO2 has not caused a temperature rise.
As a generalization your post is correct.
It is also true that different flora require higher levels of CO2 to flourish and a few species can live below 150 ppm, perhaps as low as the estimated 100 ppm.
However, our food (all derived from plants) needs a lot more CO2 that a mere 150 ppm.
The earth would be a GREEN place with CO2 at 1000 plus ppm.
Much greener than with wind/solar/batteries/EVs/heat pumps, etc.
Here is a battery example
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
EXCERPT:
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
NOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION:
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide total payments over 15 years by throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.
Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
The company that knows the most about burning wood in the Northeast is Innovative Natural Resource Solutions, Inc.
https://www.inrsllc.com/
One of their papers explains that it’s not true that “VERMONT IS HARVESTING WOOD FAR IN EXCESS OF NET ADDED ABOVE GROUND LIVE BIOMASS”
On the acreage Vermont is harvesting, about 2.5 million acres, the harvest is in excess of new growth, and has been that way for many years.
About 2 million acres is never harvested for many reasons. It also has new growth each year, but that new growth is needed by the forest, in accordance with Mother Nature.
Vermont supplements its harvest with imports from NY and NH
Whether or not cloud seeding had an impact, the event was misreported as ‘unprecedented’. Not really. The last time Dubai had 4 inches of rain in 24 hours was 75 years ago—before any ‘climate change’ and before Bill McKibben.
That’s unprecedented for alarmists with a 75 minutes attention span.
Also, there has been significant real estate development to Dubai over the past 75 years. Indeed, the Airport, that featured prominently in the reports today, didn’t exist 75 years ago. The change in land use is enormous. The same deluge would never have made the same impact in the media.
Fun fact. Dubai Airport is now the world’s second busiest (after Atlanta Hartsfield). Deliberate Dubai economic development policy, as can reach Asia and North/South America with equal ease. So ‘ideal’ global transit layover point. And Dubai, although Muslim, has made consumption of alcohol legal to support their global transit hub strategy.
Not uncommon for mixed religion places like that . Alcohol for christians or Hindus only. Its the Saudi wahabists that are ultra about no alcohol
And in both cases no one died! Climate related deaths are decreasing over the ages. Bill should be happy.
Yes.
But the UAE and Oman also lack drainage systems to cope with heavy rains and submerged roads are not uncommon during rainfall.
Not uncommon!
I think they don’t have records from before 1948, almost 75 years back.
My city’s airport flooded too when the rainstorm was about once in120:years, clearly all that paved area as and drains that are designed for 1 in 25 yr floods
The camels wouldn’t have minded 75 years ago.
Ha! Yes, the infamous “Unprecedented since … ” oxymoronic turn of phrase.
“Unprecedented since” means “Precedented”.
Logically, if so-called “climate change” were causing some increase in a particular type of weather, we should be seeing a long term and steady increase in the frequency of such events, since according to alarmists, climate change has been ongoing for many years.
But that is completely incompatible with the idea that this event is “unprecedented”.
One-time sudden events which are not part of any trend at all, lend zero credence to the ideas promulgated by climate alarmists.
Brief heavy rain events are exactly what is the norm for desert regions. Obviously, over time there will be isolated instances that exceed what is typical.
An event like this is exactly what is expected and seen for random isolated events like extreme and brief downpours of rain in random locations.
The story is changing. The UAE’s National Center of Meteorology originally said they did cloud seeding. Now they deny it.
And we also have ‘experts’ claiming that cloud seeding could not cause this. … gotta be climate change.
So they got a phone call –
“you know that research grant you’ve applied for? It would be a pity if it couldn’t proceed for ‘candidate qualification’ concerns”
Cloud seeding with a silver iodide flare is the equivalent of causing a flood by urinating in Lake Superior. If each atom of silver iodide became nucleation point for a water droplet, you can calculate the number of raindrops formed are orders of magnitude insignificant compared to the number of droplets in say a 25 mm general rain under the airplane’s flight path. But it sounds sciency enough to scam gullible “wanna-believers” out of group contributions.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/cloud-seeding-faq-1.7176435
Number of atoms ? That will be magnitudes greater than raindrops falling.
A single grain of salt will have 10 to power of 18 atoms , a cloud seeding would be multi kg not grains.
A kg. of Silver iodide in the flare contains 2.6 x 10^24 molecules of silver iodide. Then it is diluted by of 3.3 x 10^25 molecules of air per cubic meter that the airplane flies through, which is in the order of 1000 per second. That air is being convected and windblown, so the quantity of silver iodide dispersed by the airplane path compared to the size of any given cloud or weather front or the amount of water in the cloud is flying through or around is minuscule….so might show a trail of some sort behind the airplane like a contrail, but that’s about it.
The storm is supposed to have originated from next door in Oman. So they had a major storm that was boosted by seeding.
The only thing they have any expertise in is making complete fools of their jackass selves.
It was just a random weather event.
Neither climate change nor cloud seeding made a difference to the fact that it would have been off the scale anyway.
More than a year’s worth of rain was forecast well in advance from the meteorological situation.
Trying to suggest X% more rain occurred because of the oversimplified trope that ‘warmer air holds more moisture’ or because it may have been seeded is irrelevant in the circumstances. A mess is a mess, it’s no less of a mess if a few mm less rain fell.
The Clausius–Clapeyron equation says that warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air. It doesn’t say that it has to or will.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2304077120
Indeed, If you go to https://ventusky,com and set it to show precipitation then look at April 13-18 you can watch a large system develop in the South East corner of the Arabian peninsula on the afternoon of April 13. It expands, intensifies (dramatically), and moves (very) slowly North and East in the following days. As of this morning (April 18) it’s up in Afghanistan and Western Pakistan — much weakened, but still raining over a large area.
I’m not much of a meteorologist. But I doubt cloud seeding had much, if anything, to do with the progression of this system. I wouldn’t mind hearing a description of the progression from someone who understands weather better than I do (not a high bar).
“I wouldn’t mind hearing a description of the progression from someone who understands weather better than I do:
It would be interesting to see if other areas to the east of this storm front got equivalent rainfall, as the storm moved through.
@Tom
I don’t know much about Ventusky other than that their weather maps for Vermont/NY seem reasonably accurate most of the time. They are Czech. I assume that a lot of their data is satellite info.
If their maps are correct, the storm(s) affected a large area and parts of Oman, and South East Iran also got prodigious amounts of rain. Maybe even more than Dubai.
Been a long time since I studied this, so take this with a grain of salt (pun intended).
Cloud seeding is a trigger.
The chaos in the clouds then go through a sort of chain reaction.
If there are visible clouds there are already enough particles to start the cascade of nucleation points. Cloud seeding is 99 % bullshit and the remaining 1% arguable.
Golly, thank you so much for breaking my bullshitometer.
Will the UN/IPCC and the “climate” modelers be held responsible for the damages they caused by convincing people and organizations to waste trillions fighting so-called “climate change”?
You are funny!
Used to live in the UAE (Abu Dhabi). Because rainfall is sparse, storm drains range from small to non-existent. Literally easier to send out vacuum trucks after a rain event to clear any problem areas. Not a good situation if there is a heavy deluge.
And my guess would be that they don’t have a lot of storm sewers to handle the runoff.
Yes I hear flooded roads are common because of that
The Gusrdian says the safe level of CO2 is 350ppm. What a silly ignorant statement
Just for Bill McGibbon…
So when will McKibben take the great climate leap forward and transition away from FF himself!? I bet he has NO solar panels on the roof. The HYPOCRITE!
In fairness, solar doesn’t make much sense in Northwest Vermont where McKibben lives. Winter days are short (8 hours), Maximum sun angles in December are around 25 degrees. It’s cloudy much of the time. And from Halloween to mid-March, the panels will likely be covered with snow/ice much of the time anyway. Things are better for solar in Summer. But mostly, air conditioning isn’t necessary. So why bother?
I’m somewhat of a fan of solar. Really ought to be considered In suitable climates. Especially solar hot water which is likely cost effective pretty much anywhere where one can see the sun at least part of the day and hard freezes aren’t frequent. In many cases solar PV should work as well.. But I don’t live in a suitable climate. So I don’t have solar panels.
And he DOES have a wood stove!
There was no such thing as “bad” weather before Man discovered fire.
All “bad” weather events since than are due to Man made “Climate Change”.
(Did I miss anything?)
You spelled Mann wrong.
McKibben has zero scientific credentials let alone credentials related even in any remote way to climate. His entire career has been shaped to take advantage of a social issue climate change that has factions – those who like McKibben are opportunists trying to gain personal advantage on a topical issue of the day or season if you will. As one who was trained in scientific and engineering principles e.g., physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics … I have zero respect or better yet cannot even acknowledge that such people not only exist but thrive on the publicity of the topic of climate change. that is the definition of “P H O N E Y.”
Glib-ist?
Snake-oil salesmen have always been able to CON the very weak-minded.
He pretty much single-handedly invented the “donate” button specifically for enviro-crisis web pages. That puts him right up there with the invention of fish cudgels and stone paperweights, impressive at the time….
He has a BA from Hah-vid- just like Al Gore.
I was in Dubai at 7am one day, it was already 93 F.
Urban heat island?
It acts like a giant capacitor that collects heat
Phoenix is not much different. I saw most days in August with temperatures in the high 80s at sunrise. My pool was warmer than that. As I recollect, it was about 94 in August. The heavy monsoon rains usually start after the first week in July.
https://azclimate.asu.edu/monsoon/
Summer in the Midwest.
I went snow skiing in Dubai one July when it pushed past 38 C.
Story Tip
Resurfaced study claims EV tires cause 1,850 times more particulate pollution than gasoline engine exhausts — and California is being slammed for ‘trying to conceal’ it. Who’s right? (msn.com)
No, Bill McGibbon does not even know what the term “integrity” means, having never had any…
… and with the crowd he hangs with, having never encountered any.
He debated Alex Epstein about a decade ago- it’s on YouTube. Alex mopped the floor with Bill.
This might have already been mentioned, but I just looked at the ECMWF forecast from a few days ago, and this was a mid-latitude deep cool pool of air that sank south, associated with a upper tropospheric jet streak, and created a pretty strong baroclinic situation with substantial rainfall forecast by the model. In other words, the cause was an unusually cold airmass… not global warming.
Ahh… But Saint Greta says…
😉
hard to argue with that reasoning :-/
If the warm is causing the cold… she should take off the thick jacket and gloves so she can warm up.
A lifetime of education and fact gathering is no match for the inane imaginings of a middle school dropout.
There are precious few climate “scientists” with anything that even looks like integrity.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any.
hey… I resemble that remark.
Resemble = resent?
Nope
“I resemble that remark” is a line from the BBC comedy “Are You Being Served?” uttered by the late, great Molly Sugden as Mrs. Slocombe.
Thanks, Redge.
I had no idea where that originated, although often heard.
The Three Stooges used that remark in some of their films. Curly, mainly.
Can’t be a “climate scientist” – looks like he has a sense of humour
Like most Lefties, Simon is too obtuse and literal-minded to understand humour.
No Roy, you are a real scientist who specialises in atmospheric radiation, not a “climate” scientist.
A “climate” scientist.. a) usually is not actual a real scientist,
b) Believes every weather event on the planet is caused by human CO2.
c) will make up any amount of BS and manipulate any data they can, to try back up their idiotic claims.
etc etc
So you don’t fit that description.
Please don’t class yourself as a “climate” scientist…
“Please don’t class yourself as a “climate” scientist…”
But he is a climate scientist and I’m sure much to your dismay, I think you will find he agrees that human emissions of CO2 are causing warming. As I recall he just doesn’t believe the end result will be catastrophic. And while we are at it, I doubt he believes your cooky idea that El Nino is causing the warming of the last 100 years.
No , Roy is not a “climate scientist™”
He has absolutely none of the alarmism that marks someone as a “climate scientist™”
The fact that you can’t tell the difference is quite hilarious.
Oh dear, still quoting “maybes” and “assumes”.
Do you still DENY that El Ninos cause atmospheric warming… very funny..
You have obviously never bothered to look at the UAH data..
Denial is deep with you, isn’t it.
FACTS.. none
Now.. where is your evidence of any human causation.
Still waiting.!
He’s a climate scientist….
Spencer joined NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984,where he later became senior scientist for climate studies.
He has published peer reviewed papers on
Negative cloud feedbackCloud formation and temperature changeEnergy lost to space as compared to climate models
He’s a climate scientist….
He is NOT a “climate scientist™”
He is a real scientist who has studied some aspects of climate.
He is not the least “alarmist”.
He has a rational scientific mind.
He doesn’t constantly make up mindless BS linking CO2 to weather.
He doesn’t pretend that unvalidated climate models are actual science or use the output of those juvenile computer games to make idiotic predictions.
He is NOT a “climate scientist™”
—
Now.. where is your evidence of any human causation.
You have FAILED UTTERLY and COMPLETELY , yet again. !
“He has a rational scientific mind.”
He also accepts that rising CO2 levels are causing warming. So I’m wondering how if you think Spencer is so clever, why you think he has got that fundamental part so wrong?
Off the top of your head then you’re eminently qualified to be a senior climate doomster.
Stephen Koonin
The Persian Gulf usually has northerly winds that prevent the development of convective instability. In a northerly, the mid to high altitude air is just too dry to enable a level of free convection to form so no instability can occur.
A couple of days ago there were southerlies and a lot of moisture coming in from the Arabian Sea. The TPW was above 50mm. This is enough to enable convective instability to form. Last year at the same time there was only 27mm., which is typical; 21mm in 2022, 24mm in 2021. The Persian Gulf and Red Sea are regions surrounded by dry land so any air coming off the land will inhibit convective instability. It is the opposite of what occurs in the Amazon for example where there is enough permanent moisture over the land that the instability over land is dominant compared with the instability over adjacent ocean water.
Atmospheric moisture is increasing quite rapidly north of the Equator; as much as 3% per decade so the possibility of such instability is less rare. Arabian Sea is one of the regions with high upward trend.
The Mediterranean is now getting warm enough to sustain tropical cyclones. So cyclones that form over the Med to become intense rain depressions over North Africa will also be less rare.
Of course it will be terrible for Northern Africa when natural climate change returns it from desert to arable land.
Meteorologist Jeff Berardelli also noted that the air was saturated with an excessive amount of desert dust when the intense rainfall occurred over Dubai. This dust, acting as a natural cloud-seeding agent, raises questions about whether man-made seeding alone can be held accountable for the deluge.
Yep the longer we have modern weather stations the more likely we are to pick up ‘100 year’ weather events and dust in deserts could do it particularly if we’re dry land grazing-
Nullarbor floodwaters slowly receding after drought-breaking rains with recovery to take months (msn.com)
It’s a big continent like this from snow to desert and tropical rainforest and lots of different oceans impacting it-
map_australia_europe-460×346.jpg (460×346) (goannatree.com)
So if you’re going to tap or click on every weather event just for Oz you’re going to scramble your brain silly Bill let alone weather events for the flaming globe.
The best laid plans of mice and men-
Shocking time-lapse video shows train tracks quickly flooding | NT News
You can’t possibly engineer for that. Just like Cyclone Trixie that dumped incredible amounts of water up around Onslow way in NW of WA and it flowed down through the desert heading for the new Trans Australian railway at Xanthus in its way to drain into the Great Australian Bight.
Typo: bill McKinnon
Probably the first time in years those cars have had a wash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44VD3x9lGRQ
Once the windscreen wash tank is empty and/or the ashtrays are full, what further use are they?
Here’s why experts don’t think cloud seeding played a role in Dubai’s downpour
in short Nope he has shown zero integrity to this point why should he change now.