Close
today i learned (til)

Artificial Rain- Real or Sci-Fi

April 29, 2024

It’s a futuristic fantasy that many have dreamed up, that humans could someday possess the power to control the weather. Artificial weather is an interesting, but ultimately fantastical pipe dream, or is it? Would you believe me if I told you that countries around the world have been artificially altering the weather for decades? Maybe you would, and maybe you’ve heard the term “cloud-seeding” going around in the media recently. You may have heard that it is an innovative, new solution to water scarcity and climate change. Or, maybe you heard that it is causing immense harm to the environment, including some extreme cases of flooding in the Middle East. But, what exactly is cloud-seeding, and why is it being done? Is this new innovative process a solution to environmental issues, or is it another cause?

 

To understand how cloud-seeding works, it is important to understand the science behind how clouds form. Clouds are formed when evaporated water cools and condenses around a small dust or salt particle in the atmosphere. A common misconception about cloud-seeding, is that these dust particles are being released into the atmosphere to facilitate the formation of clouds. That is close, but not completely accurate to what cloud seeding is. Cloud seeding is less concerned with cloud formation, and more concerned with increasing precipitation. There are multiple types of cloud seeding, but they all involve releasing particles (usually a type of salt) into already existing clouds to act as ice nuclei. These crystalline particles increase the rain-fall capacity of the cloud by causing ice crystals to form around the ice nuclei, thus increasing the ability of the cloud to induce precipitation. Cloud seeding has been used in the US and many other countries in the world for decades to fight drought, help agriculture, disperse fog, and even help out struggling ski resorts by increasing snowfall.

 

Cloud seeding has only been a widespread practice for a few decades, and the lack of research on the topic has led to the emergence of many environmental and ethical concerns. Because cloud-seeding has not been in practice for long, it is difficult to predict the long-term environmental effects on ecosystems. Cloud seeding often includes the release of materials such as silver-nitride, dry ice, and salt into the atmosphere, all of which, though being relatively harmless, have not been studied in their long-term ecological effects. There are also concerns about the meteorological effects of artificial rain, and what larger effects altering the climate could produce. More research is required to fully understand this, but there is evidence to suggest that altering weather patterns in one area could inadvertently affect the climate in a completely different region, or disturb climate patterns in general. There are also ethical concerns over this practice, as it brings up the question of who owns and controls natural resources. In regions where water scarcity is a pressing issue, concerns over who controls and owns water resources is a growing debate, and the concept of “creating” rain in one region amplifies these concerns.

 

Now, it is time to address one of the biggest accusations that cloud-seeding has received- that this technology has directly caused some disastrous flooding events. On April 16, 2024, a record amount of flooding caused by heavy rainfall hit the United Arab Emirates, heavily affecting the cities of Dubai and Sharjah. Cloud seeding is a common practice in this region and was immediately blamed as the cause of the flooding. However, after some investigation by experts into the flooding cause, it seems unlikely that cloud-seeding played a role. Dr Friederike Otto, senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London, stated that, “Even if cloud seeding did encourage clouds around Dubai to drop water, the atmosphere would have likely been carrying more water to form clouds in the first place, because of climate change” (BBC). Meteorologists at BBC also mentioned that heavy storms had already been forecasted by systems that do not take into account artificial rain fall caused by cloud seeding. So, this tremendous weather event was not in fact caused by cloud seeding, but is another long-term effect of human-caused global warming. Higher air and ocean water temperatures from global warming increases evaporation and cloud formation, subsequently leading to increased precipitation. Global warming seems to be a common thread connecting a plethora of increased occurrences of natural disasters that we have seen in the last decade.

In conclusion, the concept of artificial weather, once confined to the realm of science fiction, has become a reality in many parts of the world through cloud-seeding. While initially seen as a solution to water scarcity, the widespread use of cloud-seeding raises significant environmental and ethical concerns. The lack of long-term research on its ecological impacts, coupled with the potential for unintended meteorological consequences underscore the complexity of manipulating weather patterns. Moreover, recent events such as the flooding in Middle East highlight the need for a deeper understanding of the interactions between human behavior and natural processes in the context of climate change. While cloud seeding may not be directly causing these floods, as many people were quick to believe, it is clear that we as a society have much to learn about the long-term effects our actions have on the environment we are so eager to alter. As we navigate the relationship between innovation and responsibility, it becomes increasingly clear that the quest to control the weather requires careful consideration of its broader implications for our planet.

 

 

 

Sources

Anderson, B. (2024, April 23). What is cloud seeding (or Artificial Rain)?. Greenly. https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/ecology-news/what-is-cloud-seeding-or-artificial-rain

CBS Interactive. (n.d.). What is cloud seeding and did it play any role in the Dubai floods?. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-cloud-seeding-and-did-it-impact-dubai-floods/

How climate change is making record-breaking floods the new normal. UNEP. (n.d.). https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-climate-change-making-record-breaking-floods-new-normal

Silva, M. P. & M. (2024, April 17). What is cloud seeding and did it cause Dubai flooding?. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68839043

What is cloud seeding?. DRI. (2022, September 19). https://www.dri.edu/cloud-seeding-program/what-is-cloud-seeding/#:~:text=Cloud%20seeding%20is%20a%20weather,base%20for%20snowflakes%20to%20form.

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
The Science Behind Pickled Vegetables and Their Longevity
today i learned (til)
Seeing Beneath the Surface: The Power and Limitations of PET-CT Imaging
today i learned (til)
Painting With all the Colors of the Wind Part One
Articles, Field Notes, today i learned (til)
Three Dog Star Night (Part 1)

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.