From the press releases “I never bothered to finish reading because it was too effing stoopid.” department.
Hiroshima University: In recent years, the frequency of weather-related natural disasters – cyclones, torrential rains, floods – has increased as a consequence of global warming. These disasters cause billions of dollars in damage and losses every year. As a result, there is great interest in weather control, the process by which human intervention can deliberately alter the weather.
Modeling weather interventions via computational modeling is the primary means by which weather interventions are studied. However, as weather is a vast and complex system, state-of-the-art numerical weather prediction (NWP) models of interventions are highly limited, requiring enormous computational resources.
A team of researchers led by Hiroshima University have applied black-box optimization algorithms to rainfall control and have demonstrated that they can be used to model rainfall minimization through weather control.
Their findings were published in the Journal of Computational Science on April 10, 2026.
Modeling weather control is an application of control theory, an interdisciplinary field of engineering and mathematics that deals with the behavior of systems. NWP modeling of weather control takes the input, models every step of the control process, and yields the output. It is here that the need for enormous computational resources arises, as weather is a highly complex system that is very difficult to accurately model in full.
“Our study asks how to design effective weather interventions for reducing rainfall when weather simulations are highly nonlinear, expensive, and do not provide reliable gradient information,” says Masaki Ogura, professor at Hiroshima University’s Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering and corresponding author of the study. “This is important because … any practical intervention method must work under strict computational limits.”
The researchers chose to use black box optimization to tackle this issue. Black-box optimization is the process of optimizing a system or function where the internal workings are not known or are too complex to be modeled accurately. The term “black-box” signifies that the system’s input-output behavior is the only information available for optimization.
The researchers chose four black-box optimization algorithms: Bayesian optimization, random search, particle swarm optimization, and genetic algorithms, and applied them to two experimental settings with different scales and levels of complexity. They used the NWP model Scalable Computing for Advanced Library and Environment Regional Model (SCALE-RM), specifically developed for climate research, as the base model for their simulations. The two experimental settings were the smaller and limited warm bubble experiment and the larger and more complex real atmosphere experiment. Specifically, they tested how a weather intervention modifying wind-fields would reduce rainfall over a target region. Their models attempted the intervention to a small portion of the simulation, either only at the start of the simulation (one-step) or every 600 or 3600 seconds (multi-step).
“Black-box optimization is a practical approach for weather-intervention design, and Bayesian optimization performed best among the tested methods under the studied settings,” says Ogura, describing the results. “One striking aspect is that meaningful rainfall reduction was achieved even under a very limited budget of expensive weather simulations. This is notable because each candidate intervention had to be evaluated through a full numerical weather simulation, so the optimizer had to find effective actions with only a small number of trials.”
Further, Bayesian optimization exhibits sensitivity to hyperparameters (parameters that define any configurable part of a model’s learning process). This indicates that Bayesian optimization can be adjusted, potentially leading to flexibility and adaptability to different atmospheric conditions.
By demonstrating the potential to design effective weather interventions even under limited computational resources, this study accelerates future research and development in disaster-prevention technologies and climate engineering.
The researchers caution that their findings may not generalize to all scenarios of weather interventions. “The next step is to test the framework in more diverse atmospheric scenarios and better understand why the methods perform differently,” Ogura concludes. “The ultimate goal is to build a reliable computational basis for future weather-intervention design for disaster mitigation.”
Yuta Higuchi & Yang Bai at Hiroshima University; Rikuto Nagai & Naoki Wakamiya at The University of Osaka; Atsushi Okazaki at Chiba University co-authored the study.
This work was supported by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) Moonshot R&D Program (JPMJMS2284).
###
“I never bothered to finish reading”
Well yes. It’s a couple of computer scientists, at an obscure Japanese university, writing in a computer science Journal. Why would you begin?
Yeah, go figure, A couple of computer scientists think they can control the weather to reduce rainfall. And what happens in drought times where a deluge could prove helpful rather than harmful and blocking rainfall would make drought conditions worse? Building better drainage and more storage would be far more useful.
I’d be happy if we just got rid of daylight savings time.
We can dream
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-backed-daylight-saving-time-bill-clears-key-house-hurdle
It may be closer than you think.
They want to make DST permanent, not get rid of it. Trump is wrong on this.
Personally, I’d prefer making Standard Time permanent, but anything that gets rid of changing the clocks twice a year is a vast improvement.
But how will anyone know when to test their smoke detectors?
😎
My wife used to test ours when we paid our monthly mortgage. After we paid it off, she test on the 1st day of each month.
If you spent much time in Japan, you’d know that drought is one of the (rather few) problems they don’t often have. Tokyo and Hiroshima average around 60 inches (1.5m) a year. That’s more than twice what London gets, half again as much as Seattle.
Yet YOU show no sign you think it is great stuff because you are too busy making an unproductive comment.
Focusing on the topic was too hard for you.
Snicker…..
Was your comment productive?
Nick buddy, you make me laugh.
and your articles have quite the same effect on me….
And making claims that don’t pass the pub test. Did you read the opening paragraph from the University? 😉
“In recent years, the frequency of weather-related natural disasters – cyclones, torrential rains, floods – has increased as a consequence of global warming.”
That got me as well.
Full Stop! There has been NO increase in frequency.
According to the Japan Meteorological Agency there has been across Japan, rainfall measuring more than two inches an hour has increased by 30 percent over the past three decades, the Japan Meteorological Agency estimates. The frequency of rainfall of over three inches an hour has jumped 70 percent.
Gems are found in strange places. Not looking for them in various areas results in missing some. A good scientist should examine all areas that may provide knowledge to his/her field of study.
Effing stupid is right.
Gotta try to keep the trough filled ….
Hiroshima? OK
How many Hiroshimas of energy would they need to block to reduce rainfall to acceptable levels without dipping into drought levels? And, if that’s the only storm for a month, how would they then create a storm to replace the mitigated sum of rain that didn’t fall in the prior storm??
“How many Hiroshima(‘)s of energy”
Easy.
42.
Nope Hiroshimas plural
It’s NOT 42 of them!
They need to do a remake. (Maybe the real answer is 43?)
(PS Yes, you’re right. In hindsight, I doubt if anyone living there would have wanted to claim possession of that bomb.)
I wonder if these Nandu’s producing this tripe stopped to consider that by blocking some of the rain from any storm could and would exacerbate any existing drought mitigation the storm might otherwise bring.
That famous Law of Unintended Consequences.
Just build better drainage and more wager storage.
Another unintended consequence is that rain doesn’t just disappear. This would just move it somewhere else, maybe where it isn’t needed!
Governments have tried to control the weather for centuries. They’ve had their citizens beat drums and dance, tossed virgins into volcanoes and burned witches at the stake.
In today’s modern world, computer modeling is used instead. Because computer programmers are smarter than ordinary people, obviously.
Considering how scarce virgins are getting, I’m glad they aren’t being tossed into volcanoes anymore.
It’s heart breaking to unicorns
Nope.
Would these guys PLEASE come to Fostoria Ohio! The forecast is clear skies with a temp of the mid 90’s* F. Make the weather more pleasant.
The only operational “Big Boy” of the UP railroad will be there for a few hours as it returns from it’s cross county trek for the 250th Anniversary of the USA.
I’d to put in an order to these guys for, ummm, low 80’s and lots of cloud cover. If they don’t deliver on my order, do I get a refund of the money spent on them?
(PS The Union Pacific’s “Big Boy” was the longest steam locomotive ever built.
But C&O’s “Allegheny” might have been the heaviest, most powerful (more horsepower) steam locomotive ever built. But, only one of those two is still running. That’s the one I want to see in clear, but not uncomfortable weather.)
There are no supercomputers currently in existence with the calculating capacity and speed to accurately model any part of the extremely complex combination of systems which operate together and give the results observed.
Just one iteration takes years.
Three horrendously complex components need mention.
All three phenomena make it necessary to model the systems with very small units, making the number of calculations, even if they were fit for purpose, enormous.
No IPCC model contains anything like these necessary elements.
Calculating capacity isn’t even the real limit.
The real limit is that too many parameters within the system are and will remain unknown.
Just recently they realised that the global number of trees is 8* higher than previously known number.
One can only imagine how little we know about things that are way smaller,transparent and/or hiding in Oceans or secondary effects of magnetic fields or the coriolis effect etc etc.
We can’t even predict hurricanes with the power of 10000 hiroshima bombs until they happen.
The scientists run their model and then say say something “was achieved”, as if they had affected the real world. This verges on a kind of psychosis——as nothing real was achieved, nor did they demonstrate that any real benefit could result from their approach.
File under “Wishful Thinking, Not Really Science”.
Weather control…there’s a story I got told as a child and I will retell in short:
God sick and tired of people praying for the daily weather (to their liking of course) decided to let them have their way and choose it themselves. Since they couldn’t come terms when it should rain, be windy, sunny cold or warm etc. they begged him to be put back in charge and go back to where they were before.
So hands off weather control which is just such a stupid idea that even children were told back in the days not to consider it.
Seems so “some” never heard the story or are simply toodumbfuckstupid and unwilling to learn.
To quote the article from the scientists at Hiroshima:
Convective systems can run up to about 30,000 feet, so low-level would be much lower, but would you want a wind-resistant curtain a thousand feet high (or maybe more) along your coast?
This was funded (at least in part) by a “Moonshot Goal” program. Claiming your assumption is not unrealistic because a different “Moonshot Goal” considered it as a conceivable solution does not make it realistic.
Of course someone will realise that building vast wind farms will also reduce the energy of that wind in the atmosphere, so some may start thinking wind farms stop being about electricty generation and more about reducing disaster damage. That’s not going to be a good result.
They don’t even know what the hell they’re controlling.
Exactly one month ago, Australia’s ABC News was telling its gullible audience that the Atlantic circulation shutdown was happening and that Europe was set to freeze in the future. Then, the other night, when reporting on the fires in Spain, they had an ‘expert’ on to tell viewers that Europe was “the fastest-warming continent” on Earth and that Europe was going to burn.
See it here: https://twitter.com/BrianBellia/status/2075948013806326191
How about tide control? They should get working on that.
From the NY Post: Radical plan to ‘dim’ the Sun among the craziest options to protect Earth from potentially historic El Niño season: scientists
An old wise saying: You can’t control just 1 thing.
Speaking of hyperparameters…
Targeted marine cloud brightening weakens subsequent El Niño
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx3012
From Scripps Institute and Oceanography & Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. Scripps used to know better, don’t know about Boulder except we once saw marijuana use near a no smoking sign. Rainmaker types?