Cloud seeding carried out in Tasmania on day before flooding

Premier Will Hodgman said he was told Hydro Tasmania authorised cloud seeding on Sunday morning in the Upper Derwent catchment, even though heavy falls were forecast.

Mr Hodgman told 936 ABC Hobart Hydro's decision was difficult to fathom at face value.

"That's why we've sought the explanation from Hydro Tasmania as to those matters, the Minister has sought that," he said.

Cloud seeding carried out in Tasmania on day before flooding

It's been long debated that cloud seeding doesn't really work that well, Hydro Tasmania are ones who, in the past, have claimed that where and when they seed clouds, have had noticeable success.

Why they chose to seed in front of this storm is a bit baffling, as it was forecast to carry heavy falls anyway.

Hydro Tasmania are in a bit of a pickle here now, as the finger is being pointed at them for exacerbating an already large storm. Do they deny that cloud seeding isn't that effective to cover themselves?

It will be interesting to see what comes of this, and cloud seeding in the future.

a reply to: Chadwickus

I would think they would be switching to ionizers produce charged particles since it has been a success in Abu Dhabi desert. As far as their decision to seed before a storm you have to wonder what they were thinking or hoping to accomplish.

Cloud Seeding isn't always about making rain - often it is about choosing the rain that is going to fall, will fall.
In a scenario like this, they'd have seeded to ensure that the rain fell over the catchment areas. In a system like the one we've just seen in Tasmania, it isn't going to produce MORE rain, it just means it falls where they want it, not elsewhere.

It was desperately needed in those catchments - we were mere days away from serious power shortages rolling statewide.


[edit] From the article:

"The flight seeded clouds for more than an hour and a half just north of Great Lake, one of the largest water storage dams in the state."

The weather system that brought that rain was a Northerly (from the northeast, specifically) - meaning that the rain generated by the cloud seeding process would have either fallen over Great Lake, or south-west of Great Lake. Ouse, mentioned in the article, is significantly south east of Great Lake - and it's extremely doubtful that Cloud Seeding would have contributed in any way to the flooding in that area.

People seem to continue to misunderstand what Cloud Seeding is or how it works. It's been generating controversy in Tasmania for decades, despite all the evidence suggesting that it's been extremely profitable and beneficial. In this instance, it's clearly just an opportunity for people who are (understandably upset, having suffered flooding) to blame somebody, regardless of whether or not they're actually responsible.

Just saw a video that mentioned the cloud seeding and shows some damage.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I would think they would be switching to ionizers produce charged particles since it has been a success in Abu Dhabi desert.

That would, as is the case with all claims of efficacy, have to do with who you ask. Ask the guys that get paid to do it and, "Hell yeah! It really, really works!" On the other hand:

“I put out a challenge to any of those that are involved in this project and making these claims. Show me the data,” he said.

There may be little chance of such transparency in the near-term, however, as Meteo Systems is closely guarding the secrets of the potentially valuable technology the company has dubbed “WEATHERTEC.”

news.nationalgeographic.com...

That was about 5 years ago. Heard anything since?

originally posted by: Awen24
Cloud Seeding isn't always about making rain - often it is about choosing the rain that is going to fall, will fall.

For goodness' sake.
I meant:

Choosing where the rain that is going to fall, will fall.

You would think that if we could control the weather that man made climate change could be dealt with...

a reply to: Phage

Well if it is a scam then oh well. I just remember reading about it in a somewhat reliable source, but if that was 5 years ago with nothing further added to verify then it is probably a scam.

But it can't be chemtrails....