Latest news with #cloudseeding
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Researchers quietly planned a test to dim sunlight. They wanted to ‘avoid scaring' the public.
A team of researchers in California drew notoriety last year with an aborted experiment on a retired aircraft carrier that sought to test a machine for creating clouds. But behind the scenes, they were planning a much larger and potentially riskier study of salt water-spraying equipment that could eventually be used to dim the sun's rays — a multimillion-dollar project aimed at producing clouds over a stretch of ocean larger than Puerto Rico. The details outlined in funding requests, emails, texts and other records obtained by POLITICO's E&E News raise new questions about a secretive billionaire-backed initiative that oversaw last year's brief solar geoengineering experiment on the San Francisco Bay. They also offer a rare glimpse into the vast scope of research aimed at finding ways to counter the Earth's warming, work that has often occurred outside public view. Such research is drawing increased interest at a time when efforts to address the root cause of climate change — burning fossil fuels — are facing setbacks in the U.S. and Europe. But the notion of human tinkering with the weather and climate has drawn a political backlash and generated conspiracy theories, adding to the challenges of mounting even small-scale tests. Last year's experiment, led by the University of Washington and intended to run for months, lasted about 20 minutes before being shut down by Alameda city officials who objected that nobody had told them about it beforehand. That initial test was only meant to be a prequel. Even before it began, the researchers were talking with donors and consultants about conducting a 3,900-square mile cloud-creation test off the west coasts of North America, Chile or south-central Africa, according to more than 400 internal documents obtained by E&E News through an open records request to the University of Washington. "At such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space," said a 2023 research plan from the university's Marine Cloud Brightening Program. The massive experiment would have been contingent upon the successful completion of the thwarted pilot test on the carrier deck in Alameda, according to the plan. The records offer no indication of whether the researchers or their billionaire backers have since abandoned the larger project. Before the setback in Alameda, the team had received some federal funding and hoped to gain access to government ships and planes, the documents show. The university and its partners — a solar geoengineering research advocacy group called SilverLining and the scientific nonprofit SRI International — didn't respond to detailed questions about the status of the larger cloud experiment. But SilverLining's executive director, Kelly Wanser, said in an email that the Marine Cloud Brightening Program aimed to "fill gaps in the information" needed to determine if the technologies are safe and effective. In the initial experiment, the researchers appeared to have disregarded past lessons about building community support for studies related to altering the climate, and instead kept their plans from the public and lawmakers until the testing was underway, some solar geoengineering experts told E&E News. The experts also expressed surprise at the size of the planned second experiment. "Alameda was a stepping stone to something much larger, and there wasn't any engagement with local communities," said Sikina Jinnah, an environmental studies professor at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "That's a serious misstep." In response to questions, University of Washington officials downplayed the magnitude of the proposed experiment and its potential to change weather patterns. Instead, they focused on the program's goal of showing that the instruments for making clouds could work in a real-world setting. They also pushed back on critics' assertions that they were operating secretively, noting that team members had previously disclosed the potential for open-ocean testing in scientific papers. The program does not "recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate," Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric and climate science professor at the university who leads the program, said in a statement to E&E News. She emphasized that the program remains focused on researching the technology, not deploying it. There are no "plans for conducting large-scale studies that would alter weather or climate," she added. Solar geoengineering encompasses a suite of hypothetical technologies and processes for reducing global warming by reflecting sunlight away from the Earth that are largely unregulated at the federal level. The two most researched approaches include releasing sulfate particles in the stratosphere or spraying saltwater aerosols over the ocean. But critics of the technologies warn that they could also disrupt weather patterns — potentially affecting farm yields, wildlife and people. Even if they succeed in cooling the climate, temperatures could spike upward if the processes are abruptly shut down before countries have transitioned away from burning planet-warming fossil fuels, an outcome described by experts as 'termination shock.' As a result, even researching them is controversial — and conspiracy theories driven by weather tragedies have worsened the backlash. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has erroneously suggested that geoengineering is responsible for the deadly July 4 flood in Texas and introduced a bill to criminalize the technology. Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, a former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, has embraced similar untruths. Meanwhile, more than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development because it "cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner." And in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law last month that bans the injection or release of chemicals into the atmosphere 'for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' Conspiracy theories involving the weather have reached enough of a pitch that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a tranche of information this month debunking the decades-old claim that jet planes intentionally release dangerous chemicals in their exhaust to alter the weather or control people's minds. The small Alameda experiment was one of several outdoor solar geoengineering studies that have been halted in recent years due to concerns that organizers had failed to consult with local communities. The city council voted to block the sprayer test in June 2024 after Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, a Democrat, complained that she had first learned about it by reading a New York Times article. The Alameda officials' sharp reaction echoed responses to past blunders by other geoengineering researchers. An experiment in Sweden's Arctic region that sought to release reflective particles in the stratosphere was canceled in 2021 after Indigenous people and environmentalists accused Harvard University of sidelining them. The entire program, known as SCoPEx, was terminated last year. "It's absolutely imperative to engage with both local communities and broader publics around not just the work that is being proposed or is being planned, but also the broader implications of that work," said Jinnah, the UC Santa Cruz professor, who served on the advisory board for SCoPEx. That view isn't universally shared in the solar geoengineering research community. Some scientists believe that the perils of climate change are too dire to not pursue the technology, which they say can be safely tested in well-designed experiments, such as the one in Alameda. "If we really were serious about the idea that to do any controversial topic needs some kind of large-scale consensus before we can research the topic, I think that means we don't research topics," David Keith, a geophysical sciences professor at the University of Chicago, said at a think tank discussion last month. Keith previously helped lead the canceled Harvard experiment. The trove of documents shows that officials with the Marine Cloud Brightening Program were in contact with officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the consulting firm Accenture as the researchers prepared for the much larger ocean test — even before the small field test had begun on the retired aircraft carrier USS Hornet. They had hoped to gain access to U.S. government ships, planes and research funding for the major experiment at sea. (NOAA did not respond to a request for comment.) After local backlash doomed the Alameda test, the team acknowledged that those federal resources were likely out of reach. The prospect of U.S. backing became more distant with the reelection of Trump, who opposes federal support for measures to limit global warming. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.) The program's donors include cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen, the philanthropist Rachel Pritzker and Chris Sacca, a venture capitalist who has appeared on Shark Tank and other TV shows. (Pritzker and Sacca didn't respond to requests for comment.) Larsen said research of marine cloud brightening is needed due to questions about the effectiveness and impacts of the technology. "At a time when scientists are facing political attacks and drastic funding cuts, we need to complement a rapid energy transition with more research into a broad range of potential climate solutions," he wrote in an email to E&E News. The 2023 research plan shows that the experiments in Alameda and at sea would have cost between $10 million and $20 million, with "large uncertainties" due to operational or government funding challenges and the potential to expand the "field studies to multiple geographic locations." They would require "significant cash at the outset" and continued support over several years, the plan said. It was submitted as part of a funding request to the Quadrature Climate Foundation, a charity associated with the London-based hedge fund Quadrature Capital. The Quadrature foundation told E&E News it had given nearly $11.9 million to SilverLining and $5 million to the University of Washington for research on solar geoengineering, which is also known as solar radiation management, or SRM. "Public and philanthropic institutions have a role in developing the knowledge needed to assess approaches like SRM," Greg De Temmerman, the foundation's chief science officer, said in a statement. The goal is to ensure that decisions about the potential use of the technologies "are made responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest." For more than a dozen years, the University of Washington has been studying marine cloud brightening to see if the potential cooling effects are worth the risks, the research team told Quadrature. "The MCB Program was formed in 2012 and operated as a largely unfunded collaboration until 2019, when modest philanthropic funding supported the commencement of dedicated effort," the plan said. The source of the program's initial financial support isn't named in the document. But the timing coincides with the establishment of SilverLining, which is six years old. SilverLining reported more than $3.6 million in revenues in 2023, the most recent year for which its tax filings are publicly available. The group does not disclose its full list of donors, although charities linked to former Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the late Gordon Moore, a co-founder of the chipmaker Intel, have reported six-figure contributions to the group. (The Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust didn't respond to a request for comment.) 'The Moore Foundation is not involved in the Marine Cloud Brightening Program," said Holly Potter, a spokesperson for the charity, adding that 'solar geoengineering research in not a focus of the foundation's work.' The program pitched Quadrature and other donors on the idea that its need for private philanthropy was only temporary. Public support would eventually arrive for solar geoengineering research, the team argued. In a 2021 update for supporters, the team said it had received $1 million over two years from NOAA and the Department of Energy for modeling studies and had begun work on the modified snow-making machine that the researchers would later test in Alameda. That technology is also being used in a field trial along the Great Barrier Reef that's funded in part by the Australian government. At the same time, the donor report acknowledged the potential for "public perception challenges" like those that would later short-circuit the Alameda field test. "The MCB Program is well-positioned both in terms of its government ties, scientific analogues and careful positioning to move forward successfully, but this remains a risk." The plan for Alameda included elements to engage the public. The deck of the USS Hornet, which is now a naval museum, remained open to visitors. But the team relied on museum staff to manage relations with Alameda leaders and carefully controlled the information it provided to the public, according to the documents provided by the University of Washington that included communications among the program leaders. "We think it's safest to get air quality review help and are pursuing that in advance of engaging, but I'd avoid scaring them overly," said an Aug. 23, 2023, text message before a meeting with Hornet officials. "We want them to work largely on the assumption that things are a go." No names were attached to the messages. Then in November 2023, a climate solutions reporter from National Public Radio was planning to visit the headquarters of SRI for a story about the importance of aerosols research. A communications strategist who worked for SilverLining at the time emailed the team a clear directive: "There will be no mention of the study taking place in Alameda," wrote Jesus Chavez, the founder of the public relations firm Singularity Media, in bold, underlined text. (Chavez didn't respond to a request for comment.) At the same time, the program was closely coordinating with government scientists, documents show. The head of NOAA's chemical sciences division was one of three "VIPs' who were scheduled to visit the headquarters of SRI for a demonstration of a cloud-making machine, according to a December 2023 email from Wanser of SilverLining. Other guests included a dean from the University of Washington and an official from the private investment office of billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, a long-time supporter of geoengineering research. (Gates Ventures didn't respond to a request for comment.) 'The focus of this event is on the spray technology and the science driving its requirements, validation and possible uses,' Wanser wrote to the team. The same month, the program detailed its progress toward the Alameda experiment in another donor report. 'The science plan for the study has been shared with our colleagues at NOAA and DOE,' said a draft of the report. A Department of Energy spokesperson acknowledged funding University of Washington 'research on how ambient aerosols affect clouds,' but said the agency hadn't supported "deliberate field deployment of aerosols into the environment.' On April 1, 2024, the day before the Alameda experiment was launched, the program and its consultants appeared to be laying the groundwork for additional geoengineering tests, which an adviser said would likely need the support of federal officials. Leaders from SilverLining, SRI and Accenture were invited to attend the discussion 'to kick off the next phase of our work together' in the consulting firm's 33rd floor offices in Salesforce Tower, the tallest building in San Francisco, a calendar invitation shows. Officials from the University of Washington and NOAA were also given the option to join. That evening, the calendar notifications show, everyone was invited to a happy hour and dinner. Accenture, SRI, the University of Washington and NOAA didn't directly respond to questions about the events. Wanser of SilverLining said in an email that the San Francisco meeting "was completely separate" from the cloud brightening program, even though it included many of the same researchers. The following afternoon, team members and Accenture executives planned to give a sprayer demonstration to Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune and board chair of the think tanks Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute, and Michael Brune, a former executive director of the Sierra Club, according to another scheduling document. It was an important moment for the team. The same technology that was being tested on the aircraft carrier's deck would also be deployed in the much larger open-ocean experiment, the research plan shows. "I was impressed with the team that was putting it together," Brune said in an interview. He attended the demo as an adviser to Larson, the crypto entrepreneur who has donated to SilverLining via the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Brune, who lives in Alameda, said he wasn't aware of the larger experiment until E&E News contacted him. "The engagement with leaders here in Alameda was subpar, and the controversy was pretty predictable," he added. In May 2024, city officials halted the experiment after complaining about the secrecy surrounding it. They also accused the organizers of violating the Hornet's lease, which was only intended to allow museum-related activities. (The Hornet didn't respond to a request for comment.) At a city council meeting the following month, Mayor Ashcraft said she wanted "a deeper understanding of the unintended consequences … not just of this small-scale experiment, but of the science, of this technology [and] where it's leading to." Then she and the other four council members voted unanimously to block the program from resuming its experiment. Between April 2024 and the city council's vote that June, the research team scrambled to limit public backlash against the test. By then, the controversy had attracted national and local media attention. The information request from E&E News sought roughly 14 months of text messages from or to Doherty and Robert Wood, another University of Washington researcher, that included or mentioned their collaborators at SilverLining or SRI. Some of the text messages that were shared by the university did not specify the sender, and Doherty and Wood did not respond to questions about them. In one text message chain on May 15, 2024, one person suggested SilverLining would pay to keep the Hornet museum closed when the tests were running "to give us some breathing space." The sender added, "for risk management and the project [it's] an easy call, and we can cover it." But an unidentified second person responded that "the community could actually find it additionally problematic that the project kept the Hornet shut down." The team members sent each other letters from people who supported the program, including one from science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson, whose 2020 novel Ministry of the Future featured a rogue nation that unilaterally implemented planetary-scale solar geoengineering. "The truth is that in the coming decades we are going to have to cope with climate change in many ways involving both technologies and social decisions," he wrote to the city council on May 29, 2024. The Alameda experiment "has the advantage of exploring a mitigation method that is potentially very significant, while also being localized, modular, and reversible. These are qualities that aren't often attributed to geoengineering." After the council vote, SilverLining hired a new public relations firm, Berlin Rosen, to handle the media attention. It also discussed organizing local events to recruit potential allies, emails show. Wanser, SilverLining's executive director, wrote in a June 6, 2024, email to the research team that the program was considering "another run at a proposal to the city post-election, with, hopefully, a build up of local support and education in the interim." Ashcraft, the mayor, said in an email to E&E News that she is "not aware of any additional outreach with the community" by the researchers, adding that they hadn't engaged with her or city staff since the vote. Meanwhile, even before Trump returned to office, the team had begun acknowledging that its mistakes in Alameda had decreased the likelihood of gaining government support for solar geoengineering research. Access to federal aircraft "isn't going to happen any time soon," Doherty, the program director, wrote to Wanser and other team members on June 14, 2024. The studies that the program is pursuing are scientifically sound and would be unlikely to alter weather patterns — even for the Puerto Rico-sized test, said Daniele Visioni, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Cornell University. Nearly 30 percent of the planet is already covered by clouds, he noted. That doesn't mean the team was wise to closely guard its plans, said Visioni, who last year helped author ethical guidelines for solar geoengineering research. "There's a difference between what they should have been required to do and what it would have been smart for them to do, from a transparent perspective, to gain the public's trust," he said. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Researchers quietly planned a major test to dim sunlight, records show
A team of researchers in California drew notoriety last year with an aborted experiment on a retired aircraft carrier that sought to test a machine for creating clouds. But behind the scenes, they were planning a much larger and potentially riskier study of salt water-spraying equipment that could eventually be used to dim the sun's rays — a multimillion-dollar project aimed at producing clouds over a stretch of ocean larger than Puerto Rico. The details outlined in funding requests, emails, texts and other records obtained by POLITICO's E&E News raise new questions about a secretive billionaire-backed initiative that oversaw last year's brief solar geoengineering experiment on the San Francisco Bay. They also offer a rare glimpse into the vast scope of research aimed at finding ways to counter the Earth's warming, work that has often occurred outside public view. Such research is drawing increased interest at a time when efforts to address the root cause of climate change — burning fossil fuels — are facing setbacks in the U.S. and Europe. But the notion of human tinkering with the weather and climate has drawn a political backlash and generated conspiracy theories, adding to the challenges of mounting even small-scale tests. Last year's experiment, led by the University of Washington and intended to run for months, lasted about 20 minutes before being shut down by Alameda city officials who objected that nobody had told them about it beforehand. That initial test was only meant to be a prequel. Even before it began, the researchers were talking with donors and consultants about conducting a 3,900-square mile cloud-creation test off the west coasts of North America, Chile or south-central Africa, according to more than 400 internal documents obtained by E&E News through an open records request to the University of Washington. "At such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space," said a 2023 research plan from the university's Marine Cloud Brightening Program. The massive experiment would have been contingent upon the successful completion of the thwarted pilot test on the carrier deck in Alameda, according to the plan. The records offer no indication of whether the researchers or their billionaire backers have since abandoned the larger project. Before the setback in Alameda, the team had received some federal funding and hoped to gain access to government ships and planes, the documents show. The university and its partners — a solar geoengineering research advocacy group called SilverLining and the scientific nonprofit SRI International — didn't respond to detailed questions about the status of the larger cloud experiment. But SilverLining's executive director, Kelly Wanser, said in an email that the Marine Cloud Brightening Program aimed to "fill gaps in the information" needed to determine if the technologies are safe and effective. In the initial experiment, the researchers appeared to have disregarded past lessons about building community support for studies related to altering the climate, and instead kept their plans from the public and lawmakers until the testing was underway, some solar geoengineering experts told E&E News. The experts also expressed surprise at the size of the planned second experiment. "Alameda was a stepping stone to something much larger, and there wasn't any engagement with local communities," said Sikina Jinnah, an environmental studies professor at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "That's a serious misstep." In response to questions, University of Washington officials downplayed the magnitude of the proposed experiment and its potential to change weather patterns. Instead, they focused on the program's goal of showing that the instruments for making clouds could work in a real-world setting. They also pushed back on critics' assertions that they were operating secretively, noting that team members had previously disclosed the potential for open-ocean testing in scientific papers. The program does not "recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate," Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric and climate science professor at the university who leads the program, said in a statement to E&E News. She emphasized that the program remains focused on researching the technology, not deploying it. There are no "plans for conducting large-scale studies that would alter weather or climate," she added. Solar geoengineering encompasses a suite of hypothetical technologies and processes for reducing global warming by reflecting sunlight away from the Earth that are largely unregulated at the federal level. The two most researched approaches include releasing sulfate particles in the stratosphere or spraying saltwater aerosols over the ocean. But critics of the technologies warn that they could also disrupt weather patterns — potentially affecting farm yields, wildlife and people. Even if they succeed in cooling the climate, temperatures could spike upward if the processes are abruptly shut down before countries have transitioned away from burning planet-warming fossil fuels, an outcome described by experts as 'termination shock.' As a result, even researching them is controversial — and conspiracy theories driven by weather tragedies have worsened the backlash. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has erroneously suggested that geoengineering is responsible for the deadly July 4 flood in Texas and introduced a bill to criminalize the technology. Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, a former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, has embraced similar untruths. Meanwhile, more than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development because it "cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner." And in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law last month that bans the injection or release of chemicals into the atmosphere 'for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' Conspiracy theories involving the weather have reached enough of a pitch that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a tranche of information this month debunking the decades-old claim that jet planes intentionally release dangerous chemicals in their exhaust to alter the weather or control people's minds. The small Alameda experiment was one of several outdoor solar geoengineering studies that have been halted in recent years due to concerns that organizers had failed to consult with local communities. The city council voted to block the sprayer test in June 2024 after Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, a Democrat, complained that she had first learned about it by reading a New York Times article. The Alameda officials' sharp reaction echoed responses to past blunders by other geoengineering researchers. An experiment in Sweden's Arctic region that sought to release reflective particles in the stratosphere was canceled in 2021 after Indigenous people and environmentalists accused Harvard University of sidelining them. The entire program, known as SCoPEx, was terminated last year. "It's absolutely imperative to engage with both local communities and broader publics around not just the work that is being proposed or is being planned, but also the broader implications of that work," said Jinnah, the UC Santa Cruz professor, who served on the advisory board for SCoPEx. That view isn't universally shared in the solar geoengineering research community. Some scientists believe that the perils of climate change are too dire to not pursue the technology, which they say can be safely tested in well-designed experiments, such as the one in Alameda. "If we really were serious about the idea that to do any controversial topic needs some kind of large-scale consensus before we can research the topic, I think that means we don't research topics," David Keith, a geophysical sciences professor at the University of Chicago, said at a think tank discussion last month. Keith previously helped lead the canceled Harvard experiment. The trove of documents shows that officials with the Marine Cloud Brightening Program were in contact with officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the consulting firm Accenture as the researchers prepared for the much larger ocean test — even before the small field test had begun on the retired aircraft carrier USS Hornet. They had hoped to gain access to U.S. government ships, planes and research funding for the major experiment at sea. (NOAA did not respond to a request for comment.) After local backlash doomed the Alameda test, the team acknowledged that those federal resources were likely out of reach. The prospect of U.S. backing became more distant with the reelection of Trump, who opposes federal support for measures to limit global warming. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.) The program's donors include cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen, the philanthropist Rachel Pritzker and Chris Sacca, a venture capitalist who has appeared on Shark Tank and other TV shows. (Pritzker and Sacca didn't respond to requests for comment.) Larsen said research of marine cloud brightening is needed due to questions about the effectiveness and impacts of the technology. "At a time when scientists are facing political attacks and drastic funding cuts, we need to complement a rapid energy transition with more research into a broad range of potential climate solutions," he wrote in an email to E&E News. The 2023 research plan shows that the experiments in Alameda and at sea would have cost between $10 million and $20 million, with "large uncertainties" due to operational or government funding challenges and the potential to expand the "field studies to multiple geographic locations." They would require "significant cash at the outset" and continued support over several years, the plan said. It was submitted as part of a funding request to the Quadrature Climate Foundation, a charity associated with the London-based hedge fund Quadrature Capital. The Quadrature foundation told E&E News it had given nearly $11.9 million to SilverLining and $5 million to the University of Washington for research on solar geoengineering, which is also known as solar radiation management, or SRM. "Public and philanthropic institutions have a role in developing the knowledge needed to assess approaches like SRM," Greg De Temmerman, the foundation's chief science officer, said in a statement. The goal is to ensure that decisions about the potential use of the technologies "are made responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest." For more than a dozen years, the University of Washington has been studying marine cloud brightening to see if the potential cooling effects are worth the risks, the research team told Quadrature. "The MCB Program was formed in 2012 and operated as a largely unfunded collaboration until 2019, when modest philanthropic funding supported the commencement of dedicated effort," the plan said. The source of the program's initial financial support isn't named in the document. But the timing coincides with the establishment of SilverLining, which is six years old. SilverLining reported more than $3.6 million in revenues in 2023, the most recent year for which its tax filings are publicly available. The group does not disclose its full list of donors, although charities linked to former Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the late Gordon Moore, a co-founder of the chipmaker Intel, have reported six-figure contributions to the group. (The Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust didn't respond to a request for comment.) 'The Moore Foundation is not involved in the Marine Cloud Brightening Program," said Holly Potter, a spokesperson for the charity, adding that 'solar geoengineering research in not a focus of the foundation's work.' The program pitched Quadrature and other donors on the idea that its need for private philanthropy was only temporary. Public support would eventually arrive for solar geoengineering research, the team argued. In a 2021 update for supporters, the team said it had received $1 million over two years from NOAA and the Department of Energy for modeling studies and had begun work on the modified snow-making machine that the researchers would later test in Alameda. That technology is also being used in a field trial along the Great Barrier Reef that's funded in part by the Australian government. At the same time, the donor report acknowledged the potential for "public perception challenges" like those that would later short-circuit the Alameda field test. "The MCB Program is well-positioned both in terms of its government ties, scientific analogues and careful positioning to move forward successfully, but this remains a risk." The plan for Alameda included elements to engage the public. The deck of the USS Hornet, which is now a naval museum, remained open to visitors. But the team relied on museum staff to manage relations with Alameda leaders and carefully controlled the information it provided to the public, according to the documents provided by the University of Washington that included communications among the program leaders. "We think it's safest to get air quality review help and are pursuing that in advance of engaging, but I'd avoid scaring them overly," said an Aug. 23, 2023, text message before a meeting with Hornet officials. "We want them to work largely on the assumption that things are a go." No names were attached to the messages. Then in November 2023, a climate solutions reporter from National Public Radio was planning to visit the headquarters of SRI for a story about the importance of aerosols research. A communications strategist who worked for SilverLining at the time emailed the team a clear directive: "There will be no mention of the study taking place in Alameda," wrote Jesus Chavez, the founder of the public relations firm Singularity Media, in bold, underlined text. (Chavez didn't respond to a request for comment.) At the same time, the program was closely coordinating with government scientists, documents show. The head of NOAA's chemical sciences division was one of three "VIPs' who were scheduled to visit the headquarters of SRI for a demonstration of a cloud-making machine, according to a December 2023 email from Wanser of SilverLining. Other guests included a dean from the University of Washington and an official from the private investment office of billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, a long-time supporter of geoengineering research. (Gates Ventures didn't respond to a request for comment.) 'The focus of this event is on the spray technology and the science driving its requirements, validation and possible uses,' Wanser wrote to the team. The same month, the program detailed its progress toward the Alameda experiment in another donor report. 'The science plan for the study has been shared with our colleagues at NOAA and DOE,' said a draft of the report. A Department of Energy spokesperson acknowledged funding University of Washington 'research on how ambient aerosols affect clouds,' but said the agency hadn't supported "deliberate field deployment of aerosols into the environment.' On April 1, 2024, the day before the Alameda experiment was launched, the program and its consultants appeared to be laying the groundwork for additional geoengineering tests, which an adviser said would likely need the support of federal officials. Leaders from SilverLining, SRI and Accenture were invited to attend the discussion 'to kick off the next phase of our work together' in the consulting firm's 33rd floor offices in Salesforce Tower, the tallest building in San Francisco, a calendar invitation shows. Officials from the University of Washington and NOAA were also given the option to join. That evening, the calendar notifications show, everyone was invited to a happy hour and dinner. Accenture, SRI, the University of Washington and NOAA didn't directly respond to questions about the events. Wanser of SilverLining said in an email that the San Francisco meeting "was completely separate" from the cloud brightening program, even though it included many of the same researchers. The following afternoon, team members and Accenture executives planned to give a sprayer demonstration to Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune and board chair of the think tanks Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute, and Michael Brune, a former executive director of the Sierra Club, according to another scheduling document. It was an important moment for the team. The same technology that was being tested on the aircraft carrier's deck would also be deployed in the much larger open-ocean experiment, the research plan shows. "I was impressed with the team that was putting it together," Brune said in an interview. He attended the demo as an adviser to Larson, the crypto entrepreneur who has donated to SilverLining via the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Brune, who lives in Alameda, said he wasn't aware of the larger experiment until E&E News contacted him. "The engagement with leaders here in Alameda was subpar, and the controversy was pretty predictable," he added. In May 2024, city officials halted the experiment after complaining about the secrecy surrounding it. They also accused the organizers of violating the Hornet's lease, which was only intended to allow museum-related activities. (The Hornet didn't respond to a request for comment.) At a city council meeting the following month, Mayor Ashcraft said she wanted "a deeper understanding of the unintended consequences … not just of this small-scale experiment, but of the science, of this technology [and] where it's leading to." Then she and the other four council members voted unanimously to block the program from resuming its experiment. Between April 2024 and the city council's vote that June, the research team scrambled to limit public backlash against the test. By then, the controversy had attracted national and local media attention. The information request from E&E News sought roughly 14 months of text messages from or to Doherty and Robert Wood, another University of Washington researcher, that included or mentioned their collaborators at SilverLining or SRI. Some of the text messages that were shared by the university did not specify the sender, and Doherty and Wood did not respond to questions about them. In one text message chain on May 15, 2024, one person suggested SilverLining would pay to keep the Hornet museum closed when the tests were running "to give us some breathing space." The sender added, "for risk management and the project [it's] an easy call, and we can cover it." But an unidentified second person responded that "the community could actually find it additionally problematic that the project kept the Hornet shut down." The team members sent each other letters from people who supported the program, including one from science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson, whose 2020 novel Ministry of the Future featured a rogue nation that unilaterally implemented planetary-scale solar geoengineering. "The truth is that in the coming decades we are going to have to cope with climate change in many ways involving both technologies and social decisions," he wrote to the city council on May 29, 2024. The Alameda experiment "has the advantage of exploring a mitigation method that is potentially very significant, while also being localized, modular, and reversible. These are qualities that aren't often attributed to geoengineering." After the council vote, SilverLining hired a new public relations firm, Berlin Rosen, to handle the media attention. It also discussed organizing local events to recruit potential allies, emails show. Wanser, SilverLining's executive director, wrote in a June 6, 2024, email to the research team that the program was considering "another run at a proposal to the city post-election, with, hopefully, a build up of local support and education in the interim." Ashcraft, the mayor, said in an email to E&E News that she is "not aware of any additional outreach with the community" by the researchers, adding that they hadn't engaged with her or city staff since the vote. Meanwhile, even before Trump returned to office, the team had begun acknowledging that its mistakes in Alameda had decreased the likelihood of gaining government support for solar geoengineering research. Access to federal aircraft "isn't going to happen any time soon," Doherty, the program director, wrote to Wanser and other team members on June 14, 2024. The studies that the program is pursuing are scientifically sound and would be unlikely to alter weather patterns — even for the Puerto Rico-sized test, said Daniele Visioni, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Cornell University. Nearly 30 percent of the planet is already covered by clouds, he noted. That doesn't mean the team was wise to closely guard its plans, said Visioni, who last year helped author ethical guidelines for solar geoengineering research. "There's a difference between what they should have been required to do and what it would have been smart for them to do, from a transparent perspective, to gain the public's trust," he said. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How a California cloud-seeding company became the center of a Texas flood conspiracy
Two days before the waters of the Guadalupe River swelled into a deadly and devastating Fourth of July flood in Kerr County, Texas, engineers with a California-based company called Rainmaker took off in an airplane about 100 miles away and dispersed 70 grams of silver iodide into a cloud. Their goal? To make it rain over Texas — part of a weather modification practice known as cloud seeding, which uses chemical compounds to augment water droplets inside clouds, making the drops large enough and heavy enough to fall to the ground. But in the hours after the flood swept through the greater Kerrville area and killed at least 135 people, including three dozen children, conspiracy theories began swirling among a small but vocal group of fringe figures. "I NEED SOMEONE TO LOOK INTO WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS … WHEN WAS THE LAST CLOUD SEEDING?" wrote Pete Chambers, a former U.S. special forces commander and prominent far-right activist, on the social media platform X. The post received 3.1 million views, yet was only one of several accusations that sprang up around Rainmaker's activities and its alleged connection to the flood. "Anyone who calls this out as a conspiracy theory can go F themselves," wrote Michael Flynn, former national security advisor under the first Trump administration, atop a repost of Chambers' tweet. Read more: Warnings ignored: The grim connection between the L.A. wildfires and Texas floods The flurry of allegations was quickly debunked, with a number of independent scientists saying that the company's actions could not have produced anywhere close to the amount of rain that triggered the flood. "It's very clear that they have nothing to do with it," said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, in a YouTube briefing following the flood. Rainmaker also denied the claims. The storm dropped as much as four inches of rain per hour over Texas Hill Country, and the river in some places rose by 26 feet in less than 45 minutes. But in some ways, the damage was done. Conspiracy theorists who have long alleged that Deep State Democrats are controlling the weather now had a real incident to point to. And researchers, companies and experts working to study and perform weather modification and geoengineering practices — which some say will be needed as climate change worsens — now have an even bigger hurdle to overcome. Within hours of the deadly flood, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said she was introducing a bill to make all forms of weather modification — such as cloud seeding — a felony. "This is not normal," the Georgia representative said in a post on X. "No person, company, entity, or government should ever be allowed to modify our weather by any means possible!!" That same week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched two new websites to "address public questions and concerns " about weather modification, geoengineering, and contrails, or the thin clouds that form behind aircraft at high altitudes. "To anyone who's ever looked up to the streaks in the sky and asked,' what the heck is going on?,' or seen headlines about private actors and even governments looking to blot out the sun in the name of stopping global warming — we've endeavored to answer all of your questions," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a video accompanying the websites' launch. "In fact, EPA shares many of the same concerns when it comes to potential threats to human health and the environment." The EPA website notes that there is a distinction between geoengineering, which involves a broad range of activities designed to modify global temperatures, and weather modification techniques such as cloud seeding, which are generally short-lived and localized. Read more: Like Texas, California faces major dangers when extreme floods come In fact, the process of cloud seeding was invented in the United States and has existed for nearly 80 years. General Electric scientists Vincent Schaefer, Irving Langmuir and Bernard Vonnegut — older brother of the late novelist Kurt Vonnegut — began experimenting with it as early as 1946. On July 2, Rainmaker's team was working in Runge, Texas, about 125 miles southeast of where the Guadalupe River would soon flood, according to Augustus Doricko, founder and chief executive of the company, which is headquartered in El Segundo. The team flew its plane to an elevation of 1,600 feet and dispersed about 70 grams of silver iodide into the clouds — an amount smaller than a handful of Skittles, Doricko said. The bright yellow compound is known to latch onto water droplets that are already present in clouds, converting them into ice crystals that can fall as rain or snow, depending on the temperature below. Soon after the flight, Rainmaker's meteorologists identified an inflow of moisture to the region and advised the team to suspend operations, which they did, Doricko said. Around 1 a.m. the next day, the National Weather Service issued its first flash flood watch for the Kerr County region. Doricko said there's no chance Rainmaker's actions — which were contracted by the nonprofit South Texas Weather Modification Assn. and on file with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — contributed to the flood. "The biggest and best cloud seeding operations we've seen to date have produced tens of millions — and maximally like 100 million — gallons of precipitation," he said. "We saw in excess of a trillion gallons of precipitation from that flood. Not only could cloud seeding not have caused this, but the aerosols that we dispersed days prior could not have persisted in the atmosphere long enough to have had any consequence on the storm." Read more: EPA seeks to roll back regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants Multiple independent experts agreed. During his briefing, Swain noted that cloud seeding does not create new clouds — it must be conducted on preexisting clouds that already have water vapor or small liquid drops inside of them, essentially enhancing what already had the potential to fall. What's more, its effects last "minutes to maybe an hour," Swain said. "Best-case-scenario estimates — absolute best-case — are that these cloud-seeding operations are able to augment the amount of precipitation by at most 10% to 15% over very limited areas," Swain said. "On average, it's a lot lower than that. In fact, in some cases, it's difficult to prove that cloud seeding does anything at all." Indeed, Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, has gone so far as to call cloud seeding a scam — in part because it can prey on farmers and other people who are desperate for rain, and because it typically delivers only modest results, he said. "There's no physical way that cloud seeding could have made the Texas storm," Dessler said, noting that the storm was fueled by extremely high levels of atmospheric water that stemmed from a tropical disturbance in the Gulf of Mexico. "This is a nonsense argument. There's no debate here about whether cloud seeding played a role in this disaster." Dessler said the whole dust-up surrounding Rainmaker and the Texas flood is a distraction from the very real issues and challenges posed by global warming. The amount of material injected into the atmosphere during cloud seeding and geoengineering operations pales in comparison to the trillions of tons of carbon dioxide humans have already spewed into the atmosphere, he said. "The real irony here is that in some sense, the argument they're making is correct — there is a conspiracy to change the climate," Dessler said. "It's through the emission of carbon dioxide, and it's by fossil fuel interests and the ecosystem that goes with that. That's the conspiracy." Read more: Texas flood highlights deadly climate risk from extreme weather Such limitations haven't stopped governments and municipalities from investing in cloud-seeding technology. One of Rainmaker's first clients was the Utah Department of Natural Resources, which was interested in cloud seeding as a response to the drying of the Great Salt Lake, Doricko said. His company has also contracted with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, the Oregon Department of Agriculture and multiple municipalities in California, including the Public Works Departments of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. David Spiegel, supervising engineer with San Luis Obispo County's Public Works Department, said the county first began exploring cloud-seeding technology in the early 2000s in response to severe drought conditions and dwindling supplies at the Lopez Lake reservoir, which feeds five city agencies nearby. It took years to get the program off the ground, and it didn't ultimately run until 2019 through 2024 — when the state was dealing with yet another drought — to somewhat middling results. Specifically, San Luis Obispo's cloud-seeding program added about 1,200 acre-feet of water per year to the nearly 50,000 acre-foot reservoir, he said. (An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons.) In its best year, it added about 2,500 acre-feet. Part of the challenge was that there weren't many clouds in the area to work with, Spiegel said. "We didn't have enough storms to seed because we were still in this drought period, so it was kind of unfortunate." However, he still saw the program as a success because the small water supply gains that came from the cloud seeding priced out to about $300 per acre-foot — far less than the cost of importing supplies from other sources such as the State Water Project, which can run closer to $1,500 an acre-foot. He said he would still consider cloud seeding in the future should the reservoir run low again. "We definitely see it as a viable option," Spiegel said. So far, the state isn't investing in its own cloud-seeding programs, though it does keep a close eye on them, according to Jason Ince, a spokesman with the California Department of Water Resources. He said any groups conducting cloud seeding work are required to notify the agency by submitting a notice of intent. An October report published by the department indicates there have been at least 16 cloud-seeding projects across multiple counties and watersheds in California in recent years. Read more: New scientific interventions are here to fight climate change. But they aren't silver bullets Such efforts could become useful as climate conditions keep moving in the wrong direction: Warming temperatures and overuse are sapping groundwater supplies in California, while state and federal officials are still mired in negotiations over use of the Colorado River — a rapidly shrinking water lifeline that supplies 40 million people across the American West. Meanwhile, global average temperatures continue to soar driven largely by fossil fuel emissions and human activity. Many experts say there's a good chance that some form of intervention — weather modification, geoengineering or some altogether new technology — will be needed in the years ahead. "Weather modification projects are vital resources to enhance fresh water supply for communities within their watersheds," the Department of Water Resources report says. It recommends that the state continue to support existing cloud-seeding projects in the state and help facilitate new ones. Speigel, of San Luis Obispo County, said laws banning cloud seeding and other weather modification measures — such as the one posed by Rep. Greene — would be a detriment to the region. "It would be a setback for us, because we are constantly looking for other opportunities for water," he said. "It would limit our ability to seek out means of more water in these long drought periods. ... I definitely think it would stifle our ability to help our customers." Even more controversial than cloud seeding are geoengineering techniques to block the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth. Some involve injecting sulfur into the stratosphere. A 2021 report on geoengineering published by the National Academies of Sciences affirmed that "meeting the challenge of climate change requires a portfolio of options," but advised caution around such methods. "[Solar geoengineering] could potentially offer an additional strategy for responding to climate change but is not a substitute for reducing [greenhouse gas] emissions," the report says. Dessler, who is also the director of the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M, likened geoengineering to airbags on a car — something no one ever hopes to use but that would be good to have in a climate emergency. He said the focus should continue to be on reducing the use of fossil fuels, and that the talk of banning geoengineering, cloud seeding and other forms of weather modification by members of the Trump administration and some lawmakers is more political than scientific. "It makes no sense — it shows you that this is not an argument about facts. It's an argument about worldview," he said. Read more: The planet is dangerously close to this climate threshold. Here's what 1.5°C really means The president has taken many steps to undo efforts to address climate change in recent months, including withdrawing from the Paris climate accord, an agreement among some 200 nations to limit global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The EPA has also removed several barriers and regulations that govern oil and gas drilling in the U.S., and has said it wants to repeal the endangerment finding — a long-held legal and scientific determination that CO2 emissions harm human health and welfare, among other significant changes. Doricko, Rainmaker's CEO, said he was disappointed to see cloud seeding politicized in the wake of the Texas flood. He was taken aback when he saw that Rep. Greene had posted a picture of his face on X — "insinuating somewhat that cloud seeding, or I, was responsible for the natural disaster in Texas, when any meteorologist or atmospheric scientist could tell you otherwise," he said. "Human civilization is unintentionally modifying the weather and the climate all the time," Doricko said, including through fossil fuel emissions and urban heat islands that warm surrounding areas. "What Rainmaker is trying to do is bring some intentionality to that, so that we can modify the weather for our benefit and deliberately." Doricko said he is also an advocate of more transparent reporting, more stringent regulations, and whatever else is needed to build trust with the public about "a really consequential technology." He said he will continue to engage with skeptics of the technology in good faith. "Cloud seeding is a water supply tool, and whether you're a farmer in a red state or an environmentalist in a blue state, water is as nonpartisan as it gets," he said. "Everybody needs water." This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Malay Mail
21-07-2025
- Climate
- Malay Mail
Unpredictable winds rule out cloud seeding for Bukit Merah lake, other fixes sought to address low water levels
IPOH, July 21 — Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Saarani Mohamad said it is not the right time to carry out cloud seeding despite the rapidly falling water level at Bukit Merah Dam, which now threatens nearby padi fields due to the prolonged dry weather. Saarani said that the current wind conditions are too unpredictable, which could result in rainfall missing the targeted area. 'I've been informed that the Meteorological Department has advised against conducting cloud seeding at this time because the wind direction is uncertain. 'They cannot confirm whether the rain will fall into Bukit Merah Lake. If it doesn't, the effort would be in vain,' he said at a press conference after attending the Meet the Customers' Day programme at Stadium Indera Mulia here. Saarani added that the state government is cautious not to repeat the mistake made in 2022, when cloud seeding resulted in rainfall over residential areas instead of the Bukit Merah reservoir, leading to public dissatisfaction. 'For that reason, we can't simply proceed with cloud seeding without expert advice from technical departments and relevant ministries, including the Meteorological Department. 'I was also informed that the National Disaster Management Agency (Nadma) has taken the initiative to assess whether cloud seeding is currently feasible,' he said. Saarani said the state government is now focusing on alternative measures, such as channeling water from nearby rivers that have not yet dried up. He also expressed hope that the Federal Government would expedite the project to divert water directly from the Perak River to Bukit Merah Lake. 'This is a very technical issue, and the problem of drying dams and rivers occurs almost every year. We sincerely hope the Federal Government can accelerate the project. 'Initially, the request was solely to resolve irrigation issues in northern Perak. But after Penang submitted a similar request, the entire initiative was bundled together. 'So now, it's not just about diverting water from the Perak River to Bukit Merah, but also about establishing a Water Treatment Plant to provide clean water to residents in northern Perak, with the surplus to be sold as treated water to Penang,' he said. It was reported that persistent heat and lack of consistent rainfall over the past few months has caused the areas surrounding the dam to become dry and barren. The situation has also affected padi fields, which have dried up due to the drought, while local inland fishermen have been forced to halt operations as their boats are now stranded and unable to reach open water.
Forbes
19-07-2025
- Science
- Forbes
The Top 6 Weather Conspiracy Theories Debunked
SANTA FE, NM - APRIL 10, 2015: Jet aircraft leave streaks of contrails across the sky above Santa ... More Fe, New Mexico. (Photo by) For whatever reason, many weather conspiracy theories have crawled out of the fringes and into mainstream discussions. Over the years, many of us have tried to play 'Whac-A-Mole' with them, but they live on like 'zombies' marching around the Internet and social media wasteland. Let's try to debunk the top six weather conspiracies currently in circulation right now. Cloud Seeding Let's start here since it has been in the news lately. People have done there 'own research' and concluded that cloud seeding caused the Texas Floods. That has been disproven. While there is plenty of information out there about cloud seeding, it is important to develop a filter to distinguish sales pitch from science. As I recently wrote in my cloud seeding primer, it is not new, and results have been found inconclusive or minimally effective at best. My colleague Tom Gill puts it best that, 'The effect of cloud seeding on the kinds of floods we've seen recently is comparable to striking a match to a raging inferno.' Candidly, I wish it was more effective so that we could eradicate economically harmful drought and raging wildfires like those happening across the U.S. right now. In this photo provided by the National Park Service, smoke from wildfires settles over Grand Canyon ... More National Park in northern Arizona on Friday, July 11, 2025. (Joelle Baird/Grand Canyon National Park) Geoengineering and Chemtrails The concept of geoengineering has been around for decades. As scholar within the field, it has also been referred to as 'climate intervention.' It has been studied by the National Academies and many credible scientific organizations. The American Meteorological Society wrote a policy statement in 2022 that stated, 'Such efforts are now commonly referred to as climate intervention (also called geoengineering): the deliberate manipulation of physical, chemical, or biological aspects of the Earth system with the intention of tempering the harmful effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.' Oddly, in recent years, I have noticed a disturbing conflation of geoengineering with misinformation about contrails. A National Weather Service website defines contrails as, 'Condensation trails, frequently called Contrails…. Cloud-like streamers frequently observed to form behind aircraft flying in clear, cold, humid air.' NWS noted two processes for formation. The website went on to say, 'The first method occurs when water vapor that accompanies the exhaust from a jet engine is added to the atmosphere. If the humidifying effect of this moisture addition overcomes the heat of combustion, then exhaust trails will form…. The second process for forming a condensation trail occurs in air that is clear, but almost fully saturated with water vapor. The aerodynamic pressure reduction resultant of air flowing around a propeller or wing tips can cool the air to induce condensation, thus forming 'aerodynamic trails.'' TORONTO, ON - February 3 - The breath of a worker on Yonge St. can be seen in the air on a bitterly ... More cold day in Toronto. Lance McMillan/Toronto StarFebruary-3-2023 (Photo by Lance McMillan/Toronto Star via Getty Images) In my over 30 years of experience as an atmospheric scientist, there are things that I have discovered about public understanding of weather. Concepts like probability of precipitation, concepts that are counter to personal mental models, and multiple processes are challenging. For example, temperature decreases as altitude increases. Most planes are flying in very cold altitudes. Though not a perfect analogy, the breath we 'see' on a cold day helps to visualize what's happening with contrails. They are not mind-altering or weather-controlling sprays. The Royal Aeronautical Society has a great website debunking 'chemtrails.' The American Association for the Advancement of Science is one the largest and most credible science societies in the world. AAAS also debunked them by reviewing perspectives from several top experts. Steering Or Controlling Hurricanes I was literally stunned to see claims that Hurricane Milton or Hurricane Helene were being controlled or created. While on a major network being interviewed about Milton, I was asked about it. Yikes! I find it to be quite disrespectful to all families impacted by such tragic storms. I certainly wish we could steer or control hurricanes so that they could be sent out to sea and not harm a single soul or piece of infrastructure. Every now and then, the idea of 'nuking' hurricanes resurfaces. That thought has been around for a while too, but in a previous piece, I discussed why experts have concluded that's a bad idea. Several years ago people claimed that the U.S. government had a massive cloud machine. It turned out to be a NASA engine test facility in Mississippi. In recent months, it has emerged that some people believe weather radars are being weaponized to control the weather or harm people. CNN's Andrew Freedman documented this trend. TOPSHOT - A drone image shows the dome of Tropicana Field which has been torn open due to Hurricane ... More Milton in St. Petersburg, Florida, on October 10, 2024. At least four people were confirmed killed as a result of two tornadoes triggered by Hurricane Milton on the east coast of the US state of Florida, local authorities said Thursday. (Photo by Bryan R. SMITH / AFP) (Photo by BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP via Getty Images) HAARP Relatively speaking, the HAARP conspiracy theory might be feeling a little neglected these days. It's one that has been around for a while, but it has been in the shadows lately compared to the new batch out there. Like many of these conspiracy theories, HAARP is rooted in real science but has been distorted, conflated, and misrepresented. According to University of Alaska's website, 'The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP, is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere.' That is region of the atmosphere about 50 to 400 miles above Earth's surface. The United States Air Force transition the research facility to the university in 2015, and it continues to be used for ionospheric research not weather manipulation. The Northern Lights appear in the sky in Svolvaer, Norway, on October 22, 2023. The Northern Lights ... More occur due to the interplay between the sun and Earth's magnetic field, which propels electrons through the atmosphere at rapid velocities. (Photo by Manuel Romano/NurPhoto via Getty Images) Climate Change Is A Hoax Much of what we are seeing with weather today can likely be associated with something that scientists have warned about for decades. Though weather certainly varies naturally, climate experts warned of an accelerated water cycle, intense rainstorms, sea level rise, mega-heatwaves, and changes to tropical cyclone intensities. While data continues to indicate that most people 'get it' about climate change, there is about 10% of the U.S. population that is dismissive. From that crowd, you typically here 'zombie theories like:' 2024 results from the 6 Americas Study. I wrote an article in 2017 addressing these and there are several good websites out there that debunk them and other common things that we hear. General circulation patterns. The Earth Is Flat While not technically a weather conspiracy theory, there are several aspects of weather, among other things, that disprove the notion that Earth is flat. We can start with imagery from weather satellites or spacecraft. Additionally, the vibrant colors of sunrises and sunsets is an exercise in physics but is a natural process that proves Earth is not flat. A view of Earth from the Space Shuttle Discovery shows late afternoon sun on the Andes Mountains, ... More with glare and heavy cloud illumination. The presence of a warm tropical regions and cold polar regions, respectively, is additional evidence. Earth's equatorial region receives more heat energy from the sun. Atmospheric circulation and ocean currents are, in part, explained by this polar-to-tropical temperature difference. Finally, weather radar beams and their ability to detect storms are affected by Earth's curvature. People cling to conspiracy theories for a multitude of reasons. This 2020 essay provides a deep dive into literacy deficiencies, fear, psychological reasoning, disproportionate weighting of information on the Internet, and other factors that perpetuate them. Radar beams and the curvature of the Earth.
