Royal Rainmakers on standby in Phuket despite three failed attempts

By Waranya Prompinpiras

 

Royal Rainmakers on standby to seed clouds in Phuket amid ongoing water shortages. Photo: Southern Royal Rainmaking Operation Center
 

PHUKET: After three failed attempts, Royal Rainmakers will again be deployed in Phuket as soon as the required weather and air traffic conditions coincide, according to Wiraphon Sudchada, Director of the Southern Royal Rainmaking Operation Center in Surat Thani.

 

Mr Wiraphon said that further cloud seeding is planned but can only be done when two key factors coincide; clouds must be present and air traffic must be such that it permits the Royal Rainmakers to undertake the operation.

 

“Air traffic is a major factor as Phuket and Krabi airports are very busy and therefore the window of opportunity is small,” Mr Wiraphon said.

Full story: https://www.thephuketnews.com/royal-rainmakers-on-standby-in-phuket-despite-three-failed-attempts-71243.php#5HBAj71GvZxmWPIU.97

 

-- © Copyright Phuket News 2019-04-28

Thai believe everything, so also this. However there must be certain circumstances to make it successful and mostly it's never!

Anyway they bring a lot of pollution,  such as dry ice, silver iodide and salt powder in the air every time!

But tit and the country is good in keeping some institutions alive.

 

The threat of them starting their activities was this time already enough, finally some real rain falling.

Tell em we dont need them now 

When air pollution is a major problem in many areas of Thailand...let's throw so more poopy particles into the mix...if by some quirk of fate we do get some rain...then all is well...

"Seeding clouds has to be done when clouds are present" !!   well I never, is there no end to the Thai brilliance of trying to grasp the obvious ?

It's a waste of public resources and money.

4 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

"Seeding clouds has to be done when clouds are present" !!   well I never, is there no end to the Thai brilliance of trying to grasp the obvious ?

And not just any clouds:

• Cloud seeding requires rainclouds. It cannot work on just any other cloud formations. Also, seeded clouds may actually travel to another location and do not cause precipitation on the intended location. Therefore, it can be argued whether or not cloud seeding is truly effective in producing rain. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328718655_Cloud_Seeding_Its_Prospects_and_Concerns_in_the_Modern_World-A_Review

However, a study Testing Efficacy of Rainmaking Activities in the Northeast of Thailand by Siriluk Chumchean and Walairat Bunthai concluded that rainmaking from cloud-seeding was effective:

• "the maximum of rain rate of the specified rainmaking’s benefit area were higher than the mean of 100 randomized areas at 5%, 3% and 1% significance levels, respectively." (my bold emphasis)  https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/OBS.Chumchean_Thailand.pdf

These percentages are not exactly overwhelming evidence of any significant advantage considering the high cost of cloud seeding and degree of error (not mentioned in the study).

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

And not just any clouds:

• Cloud seeding requires rainclouds. It cannot work on just any other cloud formations. Also, seeded clouds may actually travel to another location and do not cause precipitation on the intended location. Therefore, it can be argued whether or not cloud seeding is truly effective in producing rain. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328718655_Cloud_Seeding_Its_Prospects_and_Concerns_in_the_Modern_World-A_Review

However, a study Testing Efficacy of Rainmaking Activities in the Northeast of Thailand by Siriluk Chumchean and Walairat Bunthai concluded that rainmaking from cloud-seeding was effective:

• "the maximum of rain rate of the specified rainmaking’s benefit area were higher than the mean of 100 randomized areas at 5%, 3% and 1% significance levels, respectively." (my bold emphasis)  https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/OBS.Chumchean_Thailand.pdf

These percentages are not exactly overwhelming evidence of any significant advantage considering the high cost of cloud seeding and degree of error (not mentioned in the study).

An interesting article on its initial implementation and effectiveness .

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/what-cloud-seeding

 

No offense to HRM the late Rama IX who no doubt was a truly remarkable monarch.

 

But instead of such “solutions” that pollute more than anything else, why not for example BAN all top load washing machines that use TWICE as much water and energy (even the so-called “HE/High Efficiency” models) versus the more expensive yet much better front load models???!!!...

16 minutes ago, Dek Somboon said:

No offense to HRM the late Rama IX who no doubt was a truly remarkable monarch.

 

But instead of such “solutions” that pollute more than anything else, why not for example BAN all top load washing machines that use TWICE as much water and energy (even the so-called “HE/High Efficiency” models) versus the more expensive yet much better front load models???!!!...

Why not just ban them all and get the serfs back to washing clothes in the ditches to save even more water ?

Apart from that please post data to compare the energy and water usage of a 18 kg capacity top loader compared to an 18 kg front loader. To find the latter of this capacity when I was looking was only available  as an industrial machine and the power consumption was outrageous but I will leave it to you to produce specs for current domestic models for both types.

They got a Job, they are paid, even they follow a stupid idea 

2 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Why not just ban them all and get the serfs back to washing clothes in the ditches to save even more water ?

Apart from that please post data to compare the energy and water usage of a 18 kg capacity top loader compared to an 18 kg front loader. To find the latter of this capacity when I was looking was only available  as an industrial machine and the power consumption was outrageous but I will leave it to you to produce specs for current domestic models for both types.

LG’s largest top loader (16kg, https://www.lg.com/sg/washing-machines/lg-T2516SSAVT-top-load-washing-machines) consumes 8.1l/kg while their largest front loader (18kg, https://www.lg.com/sg/washing-machines/lg-F2718RVTV-front-load-washing-machines) consumes 5.6l/kg, even though it’s a washer/dryer (useless for Thailand I know), which are far more wasteful than conventional front load washers. Samsung unfortunately are less transparent with their consumption specs, even in their pdf user manuals...

 

Top loaders create a long waterfall to completely soak the wash in water so that the impeller can turn it, whereas front loaders only make the wash wet so that it has a maximum of

friction while the drum, heat and detergent do most of the work aided by the force of gravity - the garments continuously tumbling downwards and rubbing against each other.

 

Bottom line: especially in the face of climate change, top loaders should be banned in areas prone to drought...

2 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Why not just ban them all and get the serfs back to washing clothes in the ditches to save even more water ?

Apart from that please post data to compare the energy and water usage of a 18 kg capacity top loader compared to an 18 kg front loader. To find the latter of this capacity when I was looking was only available  as an industrial machine and the power consumption was outrageous but I will leave it to you to produce specs for current domestic models for both types.

The only reason top loaders are so popular here is because they’re cheaper than front loaders. Yet if water prices reflected the true cost of drought (emergency measures, etc.), the Thais would hopefully opt for front loaders which also clean better. Note that even the largest shops won’t carry the ultra high capacity models and you need to order them specifically. Happy shopping!????

^{rain making works when there is a 100 percent predicted chance of rain, otherwise...}

 

^{but again, have to be careful or 15 years in jail. .. you know what I mean}

On 4/28/2019 at 6:45 PM, Dek Somboon said:

LG’s largest top loader (16kg, https://www.lg.com/sg/washing-machines/lg-T2516SSAVT-top-load-washing-machines) consumes 8.1l/kg while their largest front loader (18kg, https://www.lg.com/sg/washing-machines/lg-F2718RVTV-front-load-washing-machines) consumes 5.6l/kg, even though it’s a washer/dryer (useless for Thailand I know), which are far more wasteful than conventional front load washers. Samsung unfortunately are less transparent with their consumption specs, even in their pdf user manuals...

 

Top loaders create a long waterfall to completely soak the wash in water so that the impeller can turn it, whereas front loaders only make the wash wet so that it has a maximum of

friction while the drum, heat and detergent do most of the work aided by the force of gravity - the garments continuously tumbling downwards and rubbing against each other.

 

Bottom line: especially in the face of climate change, top loaders should be banned in areas prone to drought...

Trivial. So if a household wash once per day, with a large machine, they would use 40 litres more per day. Most machines are half that size, so say 20 litres per day per household. Most toilets would use 10 times this, Showers even more. Average Thai household consumption is about 1000 litres per day (family of four), So it would save 2% .....

 

Agriculture accounts for about 90% of water usage.

26 minutes ago, rickudon said:

Trivial. So if a household wash once per day, with a large machine, they would use 40 litres more per day. Most machines are half that size, so say 20 litres per day per household. Most toilets would use 10 times this, Showers even more. Average Thai household consumption is about 1000 litres per day (family of four), So it would save 2% .....

 

Agriculture accounts for about 90% of water usage.

Anything we can do we should do.