Talk:Weather modification

Earthquakes

what about control of other natural disasters? i can't think how to work that into either this or its own article, but i'm very interested in stuff like venting geothermal pressure to avoid tectonic stress and earthquakes.. and stuff.

• Plate tectonics isn't meteorology. Sign your posts. Purplefeltangel 19:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert and cloud seeding trails

There is some text a bit confusing in the section Conspiracy theories which state, "The chemtrail conspiracy theory supposes that jet contrails are chemically altered to modify the weather and other phenomena." As it is, it reads as if weather modification by seeding clouds is a conspiracy theory. Adding to it also because cloud seeding is a technique that can make use of planes dispersing chemicals in the air. I removed the text and wrote the edit summary, "removed text at odds with current scientific development (contrails explicitly shown in news segment for cloud seeding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9zFTsFFcWc)".

This was reverted by User:AndyTheGrump, with the rationale, "Restore sourced content - Wikipedia doesn't base articles on what a contributor saw on YouTube". Per WP:YOUTUBE, "Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis." Although I removed text, the point of the guidance is that the link should be evaluated and not dismissed only because it is from YouTube.

The video of Good Morning America features a meteorologist explaining cloud seeding and shows an airplane making a trail resembling a contrail (starting at 1:04) and dropping a payload of chemicals into a cloud. I don't know how long can those trails be, how long they last or if they are noticeable from the ground. I suggest rewording the text to reflect this technology and avoid confusion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The only confusion here appears to be on your part. You link a news report showing standard aerial cloud-seeding technology using flares. Technology that has been around for decades. It says nothing about contrails. It doesn't show contrails. It has no bearing on conspiracy-theory claims that contrails routinely produced by high-flying aircraft as a consequence of burning hydrocarbon fuels in the cold upper atmosphere are being used to covertly distribute chemical substances for nefarious purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is evident that you don't share my opinion, but again that is your opinion and I won't try to patronize it. Instead I will be collegial, per WP:CIVIL.

I see some vapor-like trail coming out of the devices in the wing of the plane, which is similar to contrails. Given that such trails in the video are chemical in nature as opposed to contrails, there might be some confusion because as the current text states, The chemtrail conspiracy theory supposes that jet contrails are chemically altered to modify the weather and other phenomena.

Literally, this article (Weather modification) is about weather modification, including cloud seeding, which can use planes to disperse chemicals in clouds. Therefore, the mentioned text as it is seems to be confusing and contradictory because it is implying that weather modification using chemicals and planes is a conspiracy theory. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Contrails don't come out of flare tubes. They form from the water vapour found in jet exhaust. And given how much else is said in the article about cloud seeding, I can't see how anyone reading it could think that weather modification is a conspiracy theory. There are conspiracy theories about weather modification, certainly. Including conspiracy theories which claim that contrails are being used to disperse chemicals, which your edit removed all mention of. Possibly the wording could be improved, but that isn't the way to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have seen a few times on diverse platforms users deriding the concept that weather can be modified and they flat out say thinking that is a conspiracy theory. Also, I have to point out that I didn't say that contrails come out of flare tubes. I instead stated "which is similar to contrails". I think you are illustrating how readers can get confused.

"Possibly the wording could be improved, but that isn't the way to do it." It is a good compromise, I do think the wording needs to be improved. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I've no idea where you've seen claims that weather modification doesn't work, but this article (and the cloud seeding one) says that seeding appears to, to a limited extent. And if people are getting misinformation elsewhere, the way to rectify it is by getting it right here. Which includes not confusing the tech used for seeding with contrails. There really isn't much scope for confusion, and the claim that they are 'similar' seems to be all your own. Seeding is done using specialist equipment, on specialised aircraft, for short periods, at a specific targeted location. Any hydrocarbon-powered aircraft is going to produce contrails, continuously, in the right atmospheric conditions, due to simple chemistry - burning a hydrocarbon fuel produces H₂O and CO₂ (and if done efficiently, would ideally produce little else) - and simple physics - the water vapour turns to ice crystals in the cold, dry upper atmosphere. If conspiracy theorists mistake that for cloud seeding, or anything else, they are simply wrong. And we need to say so, explicitly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

From your analysis it looks like you are assuming people reading these articles are familiar with the topics and with technical details. I think it is better to assume they are not familiar with the topic and they are reading to inform themselves. Therefore, information needs to be clear, in plain English as far as possible, and not confusing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

How did removing pertinent information from the article make anything clear? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

By removing confusion. You are going back to square one though. I addressed this in my original comment. I think it is time to seek dispute resolution. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me: if you can give a clear explanation of what exactly this dispute is about, it may actually lead somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

well I think you're wrong & apparently so do many others on this talk page & the talk page in question of chemtrails. It is unfair to revert an edit of merit without discussion based merely on YouTube is not a source. Thinker78 is correct how the page's narrative is a direct contradiction to weather modification not being a conspiracy theory.

Wikipedia has attempted to dispell critical thinking in regards to circumstances with evidence by casting narratives that downplay arguments using phrases like "for nefarious purposes" or "contrails". Many of these narratives are in contrast to what people actually consider a "chemtrail". Cloud seeding could indeed be considered chemtrails in a literal sense. Cloud seeding is done with chemicals. That is a fact. It is not a conspiracy. Thank you. B1blazin (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)