Many regions globally are experiencing substantial “weather abnormalities.” This article, an extension of a recent Substack “Note,” is not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of this topic. Instead, it just raises some unwanted questions that seemingly have escaped global weather prediction models.

My personal experience

Here in Austria, we have been dangerously overheating. Last winter, we were often 10C above average. It rained most of the time, even in ski areas. In early April, we started having record temperatures for this time of the year – the same we used to have in July and August (30C, which is close to 90F). Typically, in April, we are still having frost and it may just warm up a little during the day. And now? The entire vegetation has gone crazy with trees suddenly blossoming and leaving out, and mid-summer flowers blooming. The intense heat has been going on for 2 weeks.

In the middle of this most recent heat wave, there was a 2-day break. I remember the first day. None of us could get our eyes off the sky. We had never seen anything like this before. No, those were not clouds. The sky looked like a total stranger. It was totally weird. The official explanation was “Sahara dust.” They had told us this before, but it had never looked as ghastly as on that one particular day.

Why have we not seen this purported culprit throughout history?

It all started much too quickly, and the change has been enormous. I should add we are a popular tourist and agricultural area. Or rather, we were. The crazy weather destroyed a substantial amount of crops and fruits last summer, and last winter, ski areas suffered substantially.

What will people do, when, in addition to pandemic policies and their aftermath, their livelihood and income are destroyed by seeming climate disasters? I am afraid many will accept anyone and anything as their savior. That people are willing to give their basic rights away to still their hunger is a well-established and sad reality.

“New experiments” to limit global warming and decades-old weather manipulation practices

Ironically, the same day we observed the abnormal and frightening sky, the Epoch Times reported “Scientists Conduct Experiment With Aerosols in the Sky to Fight Climate Change | Facts Matter,” writing
“Unbeknownst to most people, scientists have begun to conduct a secret experiment that involves shooting aerosols into the sky in the hope of preventing global warming.”
Earlier reports by the Scientific American stress that these are only experiments, “The nation’s first outdoor test to limit global warming,” which, however, the “organizers didn’t widely announce to avoid public backlash.” They admitted that the “risks are numerous.”

However, geoengineering and weather manipulations are not new. What has been widely practiced for decades is rainmaking. For example, last year, E&E News ran their article “Rainmaking experiments boom amid worsening drought.” It portrays the many experiments underway as the promising solution to climate disasters. Specifically, they stress that

“`cloud seeding’, or efforts to boost precipitation by spraying special particles into the air … [is] one of the world’s most popular forms of weather modification, and it’s practiced across much of the western U.S., as well as China, Russia, parts of the Middle East and other countries.”

One of the main reasons people are pursuing this form of weather manipulation is openly admitted:

“Cloud seeding can be relatively cheap compared with other water management strategies, like desalination, a chemical process that removes salts and other minerals from water to make it safe for drinking.”

But the article describes one “catch.” No, it’s not a safety concern. Rather,

“[i]t’s notoriously difficult to design experiments that demonstrate how well the technology actually works.” 

With “how well,” they seem to mean the output. Unwanted effects are not mentioned. The stated problem is whether or not cloud seeding actually makes “a difference,” emphasizing

“There’s no question that cloud seeding works — but the question is how much do we really produce?”

This presumed lack of efficacy and potency has prompted numerous technologies, including:

  • Silver iodide and other kinds of salt particles – which “have been commonly used in cloud seeding for decades.”
  • Charged water particles.
  • The use of drones to zap clouds with electrical pulses.
  • Using nanotechnology “by seeding clouds with special nanoengineered particles.”

In 2020, a study quantitatively demonstrated that cloud seeding “works.” The results of this study “are a fundamental step toward understanding cloud seeding efficacy that, for over half a century, has been an unanswered question for water managers wishing to utilize the technology for water resource management.”

E&E News described some UAE-funded projects and patents “to support water flooding in remote oil fields.” This confirms it is not just about agriculture and “food security.” As so often, it’s about business and income.   

The narrative of safe experiments and some purported “conspiracy theory”

The big question still is: even if these many forms of weather manipulation are “just experiments,” how do we know they are safe?

The Guardian has a sobering story concerning the 1952 flood in Devon, the worst post-war flooding disaster in Britain that killed 35. The notion that the flood was caused by secret cloud seeding experiments has been widely condemned as a conspiracy theory. However, The Guardian paints a different picture, writing

“The disaster was officially termed “the hand of God” but new evidence from previously classified government files suggests that a team of international scientists working with the RAF [the UK’s Royal Air Force] was experimenting with artificial rainmaking in southern Britain in the same week and could possibly be implicated.”

And further,

“The meteorological office has in the past denied there were any rainmaking experiments conducted before 1955, but a BBC Radio 4 history investigation, to be broadcast tonight, has unearthed documents recently released at the public record office showing that they were going on from 1949 to 1955. RAF logbooks and personnel corroborate the evidence.”

No, not just for scientific experiments – weather modification is a booming business

Weather manipulation has triggered enormous interest from researchers, governments, and corporate giants. The Journal of Weather Modification gives but a small idea about the enormous efforts and projects underway. Some of the articles indicate the competitive nature of this entertainment, also from a business perspective. For example, already in 2017, the UAE sought a leading position in “Global Rain Enhancement Research.” The article describes rain enhancement as an “unrealised” operation emphasizing its “unrealised potential” but highlighting substantial past “success” in the field. As mentioned, many other nations are doing weather manipulation experiments, including the U.S., Great Britain, China, Russia, and others.

Contrary to the assertion we hear everywhere that these are all “experiments” only, some companies have long been promoting their weather manipulation services. Take for instance 3D s.a. which describes itself as “one of the most innovative companies in the world regarding Protection against Adverse Weather Phenomena. It is a member of the Weather Modification Association and undertakes[sic] such programs since 1981.”

Specifically, they explain how they are doing weather manipulation (emphasis added):

The management of weather conditions is performed by using specially modified aircrafts[sic], weather radars and qualified staff. The company’s goals are to increase rain and snow falls (in order to face the drought and to store up water), and to protect from hail (so that the damage caused both to crops and to people’s fortunes are restrained[sic]).

“Such programs for weather management and protection from adverse  weather phenomena can be performed during the whole year. Hail protection is usually performed during the warm months (when the stormy clouds most develop), and projects for the increase of rain/snow have better results during the cold months.

“The method used for the performance of such programs is based on the penetration of condensation cells in the atmosphere, wherever there is enough humidity. However, because of their absence, either it’s impossible that water drops or ice cells are formed[sic], or due to the small number of cells, big embryos are created which fall to the ground as hail.

“When 3D s.a. carries out such programs, it uses the direct penetration method, which means the seeding of Silver Iodide (AgI) or dry ice from aircrafts[sic] to the target area at the right moment, in order to have the best results possible. This is how the available humidity of the atmosphere is divided into more cells – ice crystals, which finally fall on the ground as rain or snow.”

Another company is “RAINMAKER” which promises to provide “freshwater for farms, watersheds, and ecosystems, fortifying growth and stewarding the natural world.” They argue that “cloud seeding is the only timely, scalable solution” to the urgent depletion of freshwater, which, they believe has been accelerated by changing climate patterns.

Driving an ongoing cycle of disasters?

Now, what can go wrong? I am not a climate expert. But it seems straightforward that everything is connected, even the weather, storms, winds, atmospheric pressure, and all other related variables. So, if you manipulate the weather in one geographic region, it seems unlikely it will only have a small limited predictable effect in that area alone.

And then, we have the “new” efforts to dampen the sun. While all these may look like they should lead to a global cooling effect, all we know is that it’s a very risky and unproven theory. And we do not know the “off-target effects.” If you try to do “A”, it is more than possible that somewhere else you get the exact opposite. In medicine, we have long known about compensatory mechanisms. The same is true overall – typically when left alone, nature will restore homeostasis.

But what if “geoengineers” trigger a huge “counterbalancing” effect? If you shoot something into the atmosphere at one place, isn’t it feasible we may see a compensatory or even opposite effect, possibly also in another region?

Consider all the efforts to make rain and snow and cool the earth. If The Guardian is right, this could lead to catastrophic floodings in some regions. At the same time, if we experience the opposite effect elsewhere, some may say it’s global warming. And what will be the expected response? Do more experiments to darken the sky and create more rain & snow…

I am afraid this may turn into an ongoing cycle of an infernal disaster – from one extreme to the opposite – from which we may not recover! And now consider the plans to scale it all up and shoot the stuff from space to reach even larger areas.

The official narrative

The official narrative seems to provide an answer. Indeed, there is a certain buzzword that seems to explain what is causing the extreme weather changes we have been experiencing in recent years. It is called weather blocks.

In simple words, a weather blocking event is a disruption to the usual weather patterns of Earth’s middle latitudes. It is believed to be closely linked to the jet stream but some of the most important underpinnings of these phenomena are not known.

The Conversation describes that “Weather systems effectively ride the jet stream and distort it as they go” but that “During blocking events, these meanders get larger until eventually the jet breaks up into swirling eddies. With the jet stream disrupted, weather patterns stick around, often for a week or longer. Some places get scorched while others are inundated, day after day.” 

To me, this raises numerous questions. The abnormally hot weather we have been having may be defined by such a weather block. But what seems difficult to explain is why we had a very short break in the middle of it. It lasted for two days only, starting with the one day when the sky looked so unusually different. Whatever it was, it was unable to disrupt the block, even if it had been intended to do so. Ironically, some ten days later, the forecast is for the opposite extreme, with rain, snow, and frost.

Underappreciated flaws with the models and open questions

People do not seem to know what is causing the weather blocks. At the same time, there are serious limitations to the climate models. One of the most sobering findings in this regard was described by Hanna et al. who analyzed the recent changes in summer Greenland blocking events (measured by the Greenland Blocking Index, GBI, and calculated by two “observed” GBI series GBI1 and GBI2). The team reanalyzed these blocking events and compared them with the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) suite of global climate models over 1950–2100. They unearthed major disparities in trends between models and limitations in the global climate models. Notably, the recently observed summer GBI increase was found to lie well outside the range of modeled past reconstructions and future GBI projections.

One of the main discrepancies hinges on the following question (which reminds me very much of the one I asked above): to what extent is the increase in summer Greenland blocking caused solely by low-level regional warming further promoted by surface feedbacks (e.g. increased snowmelt and ice melt, and Arctic regional sea-ice losses), as opposed to being externally forced (e.g. atmospheric dynamical jet stream changes)?

Some of their specific findings are intriguing.

  • The observed GB2 increase is unlikely to be fully driven by the Greenland regional free atmosphere temperature increase.
  • Remote forcing from North Atlantic polar jet-stream changes involving more southerly air masses over Greenland is likely a significant contributor.
  • In addition, there is likely a substantial external forcing element through Arctic– Greenland temperature feedbacks.

This brings me back to the original question. To what extent can regional weather manipulation events influence changes and get involved in (positive/negative) feedback mechanisms that could have harmful consequences not only locally but also somewhere else?

Over the years, I have developed a deep respect for feedback mechanisms happening in nature. Neither their underpinnings nor their potentially immense implications are sufficiently understood. Surprisingly, previously studied in physics, feedback mechanisms can engender analogous phase transition events in various biological processes shaping memory and learning. Years ago, I was fascinated by the idea that such feedback processes could even help explain some intelligent behaviors of simple amoebas. Given that these primitive organisms have neither a brain nor a complex nervous system, their apparent “memory” is striking.

The overall conclusion is simple. We do not understand how repetitive or iterative processes, evoked by limited triggers but amplified by feedback processes, shape behavior, and outcome. We don’t even sufficiently comprehend this in the traditional fields that have studied these processes. How much less do we know how they could influence regional and global weather phenomena?

Ironically, the main “arguments” as to why the Devon disaster could not have been caused by RAF rainmakers is based on the narrative that (emphasis mine)

  1. Scientists involved in rainfall stimulation were only interested in seeding individual cumulus clouds – those cauliflower-shaped clouds, usually less than a mile across, which sometimes produce showers which may last 10 or 20 minutes” and
  2. “The storm which caused the 1952 disaster was not confined to the Lynmouth district.” 

Really? Just because scientists are “interested” in a certain experiment, which “sometimes” may lead to the predicted and desired outcome, it does not mean the experiment is depicted in its entirety or that it all plays out as intended. So, the first point is ridiculous. Neither does the second assertion prove it could not have rained somewhere else.

The idea that rainmaking will only lead to a small output in a limited region is a belief. It is the same type of belief as saying that synthetic genetic material, when injected, will quickly be dissolved, not linger in the body, and not be disseminated – and therefore, that huge efforts need to be devoted to making it last longer so it could possibly evoke a tiny (biological) response.

Any procedure based on “the efficacy is certainly not high enough, so therefore we need to modify the product to increase its potency/yield” will have catastrophic consequences as long as the correctness of the assumption is never tested and instead, taken for granted.

Interestingly, in addition to offering some strong evidence that the RAF rainmakers had caused the disaster, the Guardian also notes that “Significantly, it was claimed that silver iodide could cause a downpour up to 300 miles away.” 


The above described only small facets of weather manipulation. Yet, it is clear that numerous unwanted questions (Figure) have been ignored and that dissenting views are unwanted.


A few facts are clearly established:  

  1. Climate models have proven incorrect and are inadequate.
  2. The relationships between local and global are not adequately captured or not recognized at all.
  3. We have no adequate comprehension of relationships and scale (e.g. What is small versus large? Which factors are involved and which are (inter)related?)
  4. Natural feedback mechanisms are intrinsically difficult to model, even in known situations.
  5. Climate modeling is now being done via artificial intelligence, based on flawed and incomplete assumptions.
  6. If weather manipulation is being “tested” or pursued in real life, we may not be able to undo some of the unintended detrimental effects.
  7. As long as there is secrecy around the weather manipulation experiments, there is neither accountability nor capacity to correct flawed models with actual experience. The secrecy surrounding these practices and the flawed narratives are expected to intensify.

Weather “abnormalities” have drastically increased in recent years. But I do not think the insane  temperatures and floods are caused by “global warming” – the way it is usually portrayed as disrupting the jet streams and related narratives (CO2 levels). IMHO, it may be the result of various geoengineering practices that have gone awry and which cause us to fluctuate between weather extremes as everything in nature is connected – albeit in ways we do not understand.

This is only my opinion. I have no proof. But neither is there any proof that geoengineering is safe or that it has no unintended consequences.


IMPORTANTE!: Il materiale presente in questo sito (ove non ci siano avvisi particolari) può essere copiato e redistribuito, purché venga citata la fonte. NoGeoingegneria non si assume alcuna responsabilità per gli articoli e il materiale ripubblicato.Questo blog non rappresenta una testata giornalistica in quanto viene aggiornato senza alcuna periodicità. Non può pertanto considerarsi un prodotto editoriale ai sensi della legge n. 62 del 7.03.2001.