[HN Gopher] Dubai is making its own fake rain to beat 122degF heat
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Dubai is making its own fake rain to beat 122degF heat
        
       Author : kn9
       Score  : 139 points
       Date   : 2021-07-21 11:15 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.independent.co.uk)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.independent.co.uk)
        
       | mensetmanusman wrote:
       | Evaporative cooling for the win.
       | 
       | I wish (any) parks had this built in (ignoring splash/water
       | parks), because it would be easier justifying brining kids out in
       | this type of heat (especially for parks with no shade due to poor
       | design).
       | 
       | It would also bring more community together to have outdoor areas
       | that are dramatically cooler than the surroundings.
        
         | singlow wrote:
         | > brining kids out in this type of heat
         | 
         | But dry-brining is all the rage right now anyway.
        
           | mensetmanusman wrote:
           | Ha, autocorrect has gone crazy on my iPhone, it replaces the
           | word 'has' with 'Hass' as well...
        
         | fred_is_fred wrote:
         | It doesn't work well most places west of the Mississippi (where
         | evap cooling is most effective) because all the water is owned
         | at least twice over.
        
         | voisin wrote:
         | I have no idea why shade isn't a primary design concern for
         | every park. It is almost always left to "there's a tiny tree
         | over there that will produce shade in 25 years". It is
         | shocking.
        
           | MisterTea wrote:
           | I think the concern is the maintenance. Trees lose leaves in
           | autumn increasing labor costs. They may also fall or have
           | large branches break off in storms causing damage. I think
           | its lazy and anti-environmental but less expenses ftw.
        
             | jcpham2 wrote:
             | No trees near water. Algae, maintenance.
        
             | mensetmanusman wrote:
             | It also means no one uses the park when it's hot, so less
             | maintenance in that regards. I could definitely design an
             | unusable park that had zero maintenance fees :)
        
             | voisin wrote:
             | This is as good an explanation as I've ever heard. Seems
             | silly though given the maintenance that already takes place
             | with respect to lawn mowing. If trees are the concern then
             | why not large fabric sails? The park equipment is super
             | pricey to begin with so I can't imagine we are taking huge
             | extras.
        
           | asdf333 wrote:
           | it's also not just the shade. for some reason plant cover is
           | significantly cooler than just shade. i am not sure why
        
             | SuoDuanDao wrote:
             | Evaporative cooling. Trees pump huge amounts of water from
             | the ground into the air.
        
           | city41 wrote:
           | Heck, my neighborhood is 21 years old and the trees are still
           | too small to provide any meaningful shade.
        
             | Avalaxy wrote:
             | Just got to wait 4 more years then.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | soheil wrote:
       | > The monsoon-like downpour drenches a busy highway,
       | 
       | Why is the word monsoon used for countries in the east and heavy
       | rainfall or other words in the west? Is there a scientific
       | difference?
        
         | ultrarunner wrote:
         | My understanding is that monsoonal patterns are a result of
         | seasonal heat causing a rising air column, which is then
         | replaced by wetter air from over (relatively) nearby oceans.
         | Wikipedia says that's no longer the preferred understanding,
         | but then goes on to describe exactly what I said, so consult
         | your local meteorologist. At any rate, "Monsoon" is a commonly
         | used word in Phoenix understood to mean seasonal rain storms.
         | This is in contrast to just "rain" which is not necessarily
         | monsoonal in nature. We do get rain in the winter,
         | occasionally, but it is not the monsoon.
        
       | _Understated_ wrote:
       | The other comments here talk about hoarding potential for rain in
       | the future and depriving others of it but what about weaponising
       | it? You could potentially annihilate your enemy by generating
       | masses of rainfall and destroying their infrastructure could you
       | not?
       | 
       | It wouldn't be as targetted as a missile strike but you could
       | easily say "it wasn't me!"...
        
         | reportgunner wrote:
         | Reminds me of Red Alert 2
         | https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Weather_control_device_(Red_Aler...
        
         | SuoDuanDao wrote:
         | Hmm... does anyone have beef with both Germany and China? The
         | only connection I see between them is that they're both lender
         | countries...
        
         | thebean11 wrote:
         | If you have the ability to freely fly a bunch of drones in
         | enemy territory there's a lot of stuff you can do.
        
           | dylan604 wrote:
           | <sarcasm>No need to invade! You could just build a large
           | antenna array to control the weather:
           | https://presscore.ca/news/haarp-mandated-to-create-floods-
           | to...
           | 
           | There are some crazy stories related to the HAARP program
           | including opening holes in the ozone layer which caused
           | instaneous skin burning to anyone caught under the hole. Even
           | back in the early days of the internet, it was obvious how
           | the conspiracy circles were going to flourish and push the
           | drek to world. I had never heard of presscore.ca, but based
           | on this article alone, I now know to hopefully never see it
           | again except for examples like in this case.
        
             | blooalien wrote:
             | Crazy thing about the "tinfoil hatters" is that they'll
             | fight to the death to defend their pet conspiracy, but it's
             | _impossible_ for them to believe the much more plausible
             | conspiracy theory that certain huge corporate interests
             | conspired to sell out the entirety of humanity for
             | ridiculous gobs and truckloads of short-term profits.
        
           | throw1234651234 wrote:
           | If you are really bored, you can cause lightning:
           | 
           | "A lightning rocket is a rocket that unravels a conductor,
           | such as a fine copper wire, as it ascends, to conduct
           | lightning charges to the ground. Lightning strikes derived
           | from this process are called "triggered lightning."[1][2][3]"
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rocket
           | 
           | Of course, you can just drop some HE instead. Not sure how
           | much damage lightning actually does.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | matt_f wrote:
       | Question! Is there any reason this technique could not be applied
       | to solve the Oregon wildfires?
        
         | anomaloustho wrote:
         | Last I read, the effectiveness of cloud seeding is still up for
         | debate.
         | 
         | Wikipedia has a section on effectiveness, "A study conducted by
         | the National Academy of Sciences failed to find statistically
         | significant support for the effectiveness of cloud seeding."[1]
         | 
         | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
        
         | kamranjon wrote:
         | Lack of clouds during wildfire conditions would be my guess
        
           | y-c-o-m-b wrote:
           | We've actually had a dozen mornings now in the Portland area
           | with significant cloud cover. There's also been NW wind flow
           | so _if_ this technique only needed clouds and wind to push it
           | in the direction of the fires, I don 't see a reason why it
           | couldn't work. Then again I'm no meteorologist.
        
       | truculent wrote:
       | Are there any known side-effects of inducing rain in an unusual
       | place like this? The weather is a complex system, so I hesitate
       | to speculate too much, but would it reduce rainfall elsewhere?
       | 
       | With geopolitical tensions rising over rights to the Nile, I
       | wonder if rainfall patterns could follow a similar trend.
        
         | bigbassroller wrote:
         | The amazon rain forest relies on minerals blown from dust
         | storms in the Sahara desert, so therefore terraforming the
         | Sahara would have a negative effect on the amazon. Source
         | https://youtu.be/2hmAeLYMrQg
        
           | treeman79 wrote:
           | Wait 20,000 years and they'll swap positions.
           | 
           | https://phys.org/news/2019-01-sahara-swung-lush-
           | conditions-y...
        
           | edgyquant wrote:
           | While this is true there's a huge difference between adding
           | rain to Dubai and terraforming the Sahara.
        
         | lyaa wrote:
         | Not in this case.
         | 
         | The vast majority of the population of the UAE lives in coastal
         | cities and that is where the rain is induced. To the east,
         | west, and north you have large bodies of water and to the south
         | a (mostly) empty desert.
        
         | mrweasel wrote:
         | > would it reduce rainfall elsewhere?
         | 
         | It will. I think it was The Economist, but it might have been
         | some other magazine, who had an article recently, regarding
         | Chinas usage of cloud seeding.
         | 
         | You're potentially "stealing" rain from other countries or
         | regions. If it was just going into the ocean, then maybe it's
         | fine, but if you're stealing it from a neighbouring country.
        
           | pier25 wrote:
           | This reminded me of the "I drink your milkshake" scene from
           | "There Will Be Blood".
        
             | singlow wrote:
             | For which the quote happened to be on last night's
             | jeopardy...
        
         | theonlybutlet wrote:
         | Perhaps saltiness?
        
         | bostonsre wrote:
         | It sucks for places downstream of the jet stream. It could be
         | good to end wildfires and droughts in California and Oregon but
         | can't imagine the states to the east will be too happy.
        
       | melicoy wrote:
       | I have read that they are using drone technology to create
       | precipitation. Can the same method be applied in extinguishing
       | forest fires?
        
       | Nux wrote:
       | Subject reminds me of this short sci-fi animation I saw somewhat
       | recently, worth the 10 minutes imho.
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWCGK4nneeU
        
         | shagie wrote:
         | DUST ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7sDT8jZ76VLV1u__krUutA
         | ) is a great channel to subscribe to. It frequently has
         | reasonably high production quality science fiction shorts.
        
         | merpnderp wrote:
         | Hah, I knew exactly what you referring to before I clicked and
         | confirmed. Great piece of art. Thanks for bringing it up.
        
       | nose wrote:
       | Could this be used in California as an additional fire
       | extinguishing method?
        
         | fjabre wrote:
         | Home to some of the best and brightest engineers in the world
         | and California is still figuring how many firemen, goats and
         | firetrucks to send.
         | 
         | Where are Google, Facebook, Apple, SpaceX, California state
         | gov?
         | 
         | And Musk is still focused on LA traffic jams. I guess the worst
         | fires in California state history are not enough to sway the
         | titans of industry into action.
         | 
         | Even though these fires are happening in their back yard.
        
           | google234123 wrote:
           | Neither side (the government and these companies) want to get
           | involved with the other
        
           | mistrial9 wrote:
           | there are a dozen efforts and a lot of money (captured
           | mainly), and yes, a lot of high-tech in play right now. one
           | link:
           | 
           | https://wifire.ucsd.edu/
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | kansface wrote:
           | Wildfires in CA are a political issue that will only be
           | solved via a political solution, but at present, there is
           | absolutely no appetite to do so among the residents or
           | politicians. Its like asking why Elon hasn't fixed healthcare
           | or higher ed in the US.
        
           | You-Are-Right wrote:
           | But look how cool they can travel to space now!
        
         | s1artibartfast wrote:
         | Unfortunately more fires are the only solution, due to the
         | amount of fuel built up in California forests from a century of
         | mismanagement. 2020 was the highest burn area on record with 4+
         | million acres burnt, and we would need 10 years burning at this
         | level to bring the state down to 1920 fuel levels. The sad part
         | is that due to the amount of built up fuel, these fires will be
         | very intense leaving moonscapes opposed to healthy forests.
         | 
         | More prescribed burns in the spring and wet years may help, but
         | I don't think the political willpower is there, given the
         | liability if things get out of hand.
        
           | jollybean wrote:
           | That's very intriguing and doesn't seem to be part of the
           | popular narrative. Is this 'consensus' science, i.e.
           | generally accepted, or is this a novel take?
           | 
           | Also what specifically has been 'mismanaged'? Wouldn't
           | leaving nature to run it's course be a reasonable thing to
           | do, or would this imply 'build up and then big fires every
           | century'?
           | 
           | Also, do you know if it's the same in Australia?
        
             | kibwen wrote:
             | Re: "popular narrative", I think this is just unfamiliarity
             | with the source material. The unintentionally-disastrous
             | fire management policies of the 1900s have been widely
             | known since at least the Yellowstone Fire of 1988
             | catapulted forest fires into the public eye: https://en.wik
             | ipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_fires_of_1988#Fire...
             | 
             | The problem is that nobody wants to acknowledge that fire
             | is a necessary and constructive part of the ecosystem. So
             | they build their homes in wildfire zones and support
             | policies that suppress fires until the pot boils over and
             | the fire turns from constructive to utterly destructive.
        
               | s1artibartfast wrote:
               | The science goes back far further than that. Scientists
               | were advocating for natural burns in the 1930s, when the
               | Roy Headley, chief of fire control for the Natural Forest
               | Service, wanted to allow burns but was overruled.
        
               | kibwen wrote:
               | Indeed, I was trying to refer to broader understanding
               | outside of the scientific establishment. It should be
               | noted that the Yellowstone Fire of 1988 was actually a
               | _success_ of proper fire management techniques
               | established in the decades prior; if those hadn 't been
               | in place, then the fires of 1988 would have been even
               | worse. But to the public at the time who were uninitiated
               | to the idea of the constructive power of regular forest
               | fires, and facing the prospect of losing their most
               | impressive national monument to fire, and after being
               | inundated with decades of Smokey The Bear, it's no
               | surprise that there was outrage at the forest management
               | for allowing any fires to happen, despite their necessity
               | (and eventual inevitability).
        
             | s1artibartfast wrote:
             | My understanding is that this is the scientific consensus
             | as the main contribution with climate change as an
             | exaserbating effect. Most media coverage focuses on the
             | latter for more clicks.
             | 
             | The mismanagement in this context is a century long policy
             | of extinguishing natural fires and not letting nature 'run
             | its course'.
             | 
             | The policy was briefly lifted in the 60s or 70s do to
             | overwhelming scientific opposition, but reinstated due to
             | public outcry after a few iconic locations burned.
             | 
             | The wikipedia below has some basic starting information,
             | but generally whitewashes history, suggest that policy was
             | corrected in the 80's. IF you dig deeper, around 100,000
             | acres were allowed to burn per year on federal land in the
             | 90's and 2000's, which is far too low.
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wildfire_suppressi
             | o...
             | 
             | Slide 4 of the PDF below gives a an example of the fire
             | frequency in the 1800s in comparison to 1900s.
             | 
             | https://ucanr.edu/sites/firesummit/files/302800.pdf
             | 
             | I have no clue about Aussie fire policy, sorry.
        
       | bko wrote:
       | > The enhanced rain is created using drone technology that
       | unleashes electrical charges into clouds in order for them to
       | clump together and form precipitation...Applying electrical
       | shocks to clouds is preferred as it doesn't require the use of
       | chemicals.
       | 
       | Sounds pretty innocuous. I'm looking forward to reading comments
       | about how this is dangerous and could cause unintended
       | consequences. Only thing I can think of is perhaps that could
       | reduce rainfall in neighboring areas which would have received
       | the rain.
        
         | hfjtntnfjfk wrote:
         | Like many things, it's about quantity.
         | 
         | Nobody would mind if there was one place on Earth which we
         | would pollute in an extreme way. The problem is when we are
         | polluting all over the place.
         | 
         | Now imagine if every major city started doing weather
         | engineering.
         | 
         | It's unlikely that we would be able to have a giant effect,
         | there is only so much energy we can put out, but local
         | consequences could be pretty drastic. OTOH, local consequences
         | will kind of fall in the same country.
        
         | afavour wrote:
         | > Only thing I can think of is perhaps that could reduce
         | rainfall in neighboring areas which would have received the
         | rain.
         | 
         | ...which seems significant, no? If you fast forward to a water
         | deprived future (uh, present?) and give nation states the
         | ability to take water that would have fallen on neighbouring
         | countries and take it for themselves... I don't see how that
         | ends well.
         | 
         | Don't get me wrong, the technology is fascinating and on purely
         | technological terms it's a great development. But yes, it could
         | lead to some strange outcomes.
        
           | peeters wrote:
           | It's not like this is a new concept. Geopolitical
           | considerations come into play all the time with shared
           | waterbodies. Canada and the U.S. have treaties governing the
           | Great Lakes, Egypt threatens war with Ethiopia over the dam
           | on the Blue Nile, etc.
        
             | bbarnett wrote:
             | Indeed
             | 
             | https://columbiainsight.org/how-and-why-to-fix-the-u-s-
             | canad...
        
           | kwertyoowiyop wrote:
           | The Tragedy of the Commons takes to the skies.
        
             | Y_Y wrote:
             | Monty Python's Flying Surcharge
        
           | dr1s wrote:
           | Clouds can also just evaporate if the temperature is hot
           | enough, like in a desert. Regardless I think it's better to
           | use this kind of method for cloud-seeding then the pumping
           | chemicals into the air, which seems to be the common method.
        
             | rjmunro wrote:
             | If a cloud "evaporates", the water is still in the air and
             | will condense into clouds and rain at some point somewhere
             | else. It can't just disappear.
        
           | nojito wrote:
           | This already happens with dams which is arguably more
           | devastating than rain cloud seeding.
        
             | jamal-kumar wrote:
             | Great point - also not to mention footgunning enormous
             | bodies of water even within a nation
             | http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm
        
           | Arrath wrote:
           | Sounds like the next iteration of downstream countries
           | getting mad at upstream countries building dams on rivers.
           | 
           | E.G. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50328647
        
       | Shadonototro wrote:
       | that means other region won't have rain
       | 
       | this should be illegal
        
         | TroisM wrote:
         | A bit like the US takes water from large rivers that used to go
         | to Mexico? But are now dry river beds before getting to the
         | border (Colorado river?)
        
         | Thev00d00 wrote:
         | Perhaps the scope of "Convention on the Law of the Non-
         | Navigational Uses of International Watercourses" should be
         | expanded, or similar legislation
        
       | nanna wrote:
       | I have a better suggestion. Quit pumping out oil. Deal with the
       | root causes of climate change.
        
         | parthdesai wrote:
         | UAE actually doesn't rely much on oil at all.
        
       | satokema_work wrote:
       | so now we're saying weather control/manipulation is real then?
       | 
       | i guess the conspiracy nuts were right again.
        
         | ceejayoz wrote:
         | We've been openly trying it since at least the 1960s.
         | 
         | The conspiracy nuts claim it's intentionally being used to make
         | targeted natural disasters (and typically throw in chemtrail
         | stuff), which is a very different claim than "we can probably
         | increase rainfall a little bit'.
        
       | jmiskovic wrote:
       | I got interested in drone tech and this source has more info:
       | https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/27/middleeast/clouds-electri...
        
       | haunter wrote:
       | aka cloud seeding, a lot of country does this
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
        
         | cataflam wrote:
         | > The enhanced rain is created using drone technology that
         | unleashes electrical charges into clouds (..)
         | 
         | > Applying electrical shocks to clouds is preferred as it
         | doesn't require the use of chemicals.
         | 
         | So, a bit different than cloud seeding
        
           | aeroman wrote:
           | The idea is pretty similar, in that the aim to to create
           | cloud droplets large enough that precipitation forms in those
           | clouds (hygroscopic cloud seeding). This is a little
           | different from glaciogenic cloud seeding, where you aim to
           | generate ice in a supercooled cloud (which has historically
           | has been more common).
           | 
           | Glaciogenic seeding typically uses something like silver
           | iodide (to nucleate ice crystals). For the clouds over the
           | UAE (which are not supercooled), table salt would be more
           | likely to be used. This idea is that it can create cloud
           | droplets that are large enough to begin the collision-
           | coalesence process.
        
             | dole wrote:
             | Curious how saline that rain would end up being,
             | detrimental to plant life, considerable corrosion for
             | metals/cars/etc.
        
               | Mvhsz wrote:
               | Just guessing but I can't imagine they use as much salt
               | as northern cities put on the road when it snows (dump
               | trucks worth of salt). There's information for that at my
               | local extension office [1]. The TL;DR is that plants
               | don't love it, but they tolerate it. Grasses are
               | especially tolerant.
               | 
               | [1] https://plant-pest-advisory.rutgers.edu/impact-of-
               | road-salt-...
        
         | CountDrewku wrote:
         | They do it at the ski resorts here in CO.
        
       | purple_ferret wrote:
       | I'm surprised they get even 4 inches of rain a year, but it seems
       | like it's almost all in the winter. Assuming they can get another
       | 4 inches during the summer, they can get as much rain as Phoenix.
       | I wonder if this can dramatically change the landscape.
        
         | cfn wrote:
         | They probably get them in a few weather events every year. I
         | lived in a place in the South of Portugal that, on paper, gets
         | has much rain as, say, Berlin. The catch is that it would fall
         | over 3 or 4 very strong downpours causing flooding and
         | devastation.
        
         | ratsforhorses wrote:
         | I'd have thought with the amount of coffee grounds, leftover
         | food and human manure from so many people, one could have
         | turned their surrounding areas into a self sustaining green
         | belt (with a little help from atmospheric water generation http
         | s://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_water_generator#....
        
       | hasmanean wrote:
       | This is just cloud seeding. They've been doing it for decades,
       | though not with drones.
        
         | NationalPark wrote:
         | The technique is different too. This uses electricity somehow
         | instead of the chemical methods that are typically what people
         | call "cloud seeding".
        
         | sha256kira wrote:
         | And didn't cloud seeding used to be chemical-based where this
         | is electrical? Does that make this less sketchy?
        
       | raverbashing wrote:
       | I'm curious how places out there by the sea like Dubai are
       | essentially a desert. Evaporation should be massive at those
       | areas no?
        
         | cryptonector wrote:
         | Vegetation evaporates more water, faster, than the Sun shining
         | on open water body surfaces.
         | 
         | I've seen a picture from directly overhead of the Amazon river
         | where you can see clouds forming directly over treetops on
         | either side of the river, but not the tiniest wisp of cloud
         | over the river itself.
        
       | dcolkitt wrote:
       | This is actually the reason why Miami is one of the few major
       | American cities that's never broken 100 F in recorded history.
       | When temperatures rise significantly above 90, then the chance of
       | rain goes to 100%, which cools things back down. It's pretty much
       | why you get clockwork torrential downpours every afternoon in
       | Florida summers.
        
         | cle wrote:
         | Tampa has that distinction for the same reason too. Afternoon
         | thunderstorms can cause the temperature to drop sometimes by 20
         | F!
        
           | rootsudo wrote:
           | Yep, loved Clearwater Summer rains and thunder. :)
        
           | iso1631 wrote:
           | Singapore, on the equator on the end of a peninsular and
           | surrounded by the sea, has a record high of just 37C (98.6F),
           | lower than the record highs of Finland, Sweden, the UK,
           | Japan, Korea, Russia etc.
           | 
           | The Maldives, also known for being reliably warm and just 4
           | degrees north of the equator, has a high even lower, 34.9C,
           | only a handful of countries have a high of lower than that
           | (Iceland and Greenland being two)
           | 
           | Of course they also have the highest record low temperatres
           | (19C and 17.2C each)
        
         | kop316 wrote:
         | Would you minding explaining the phenomenon in a bit more
         | detail, if you could?
         | 
         | I thought that as air temperature rises, the air is able to
         | absorb more heat, not less. And I thought rain was essentially
         | the fact that there is too much moisture in the air, so it
         | condenses. So this is counterintuitive to me (but I am likely
         | missing something).
        
           | rini17 wrote:
           | The warmer air over land rises up, cooling in the process.
           | But then water in it condenses and gives up heat, that
           | supports the upward flow. So it's kind of runaway process.
           | Eventually when there's too much water condensed, then it
           | overcomes the upward flow and rains down.
           | 
           | How it happens, and whether it happens at all, whether the
           | rain won't evaporate in midair etc. depends on variety of
           | conditions.
        
             | kop316 wrote:
             | Ohhh that makes sense. And since they are so close to
             | water, there is always an amount of humidity in the air too
             | I suppose.
             | 
             | Thank you for the explanation!
        
       | fritzo wrote:
       | Scientific publication:
       | https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/38/1/jtech-d...
        
       | solarkraft wrote:
       | > electrical charges into clouds in order for them to clump
       | together and form precipitation
       | 
       | So like ... real rain?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-21 23:02 UTC)