A weather-modification company claims its drones sprayed silver iodide into clouds over Alaska and produced roughly 19 million gallons of additional water in about three hours, but its own report shows that water was not directly measured as precipitation that would not otherwise have fallen.
The revelation raises questions about the safety, environmental, and informed-consent implications of private companies pursuing the power to intentionally alter weather, while also raising questions about whether those companies are overstating what their technology can actually do by presenting computer-based, model-derived estimates as demonstrated results.
Rainmaker announced on Sunday that it had:
“successfully validated the impact of drone-based, glaciogenic cloud seeding operations in the Kenai Peninsula, AK on August 22–23, 2026.”
Over roughly three hours, Rainmaker conducted seven coordinated seeding missions.
Two drones released 19 flares containing silver iodide (AgI), a substance used to induce ice formation inside suitable clouds.
“Each flare dispersed approximately 19.7 g of AgI over a nominal 3.5-min seeding period, for a total of approximately 374.3 g of AgI.”
Rainmaker says the intervention worked, claiming the drones “created” precipitation:
“Rainmaker estimates these seeding signatures created 45—65 acre-feet of net new precipitation, with a mean value of 57.6 acre-feet.”
Elsewhere, Rainmaker gives a mean estimate of 57.62 acre-feet, or 71,072 cubic meters (~18.8 million gallons).
But there is a fundamental problem with calling that water “net new.”
Follow us on Instagram @realjonfleetwood & Twitter/X @JonMFleetwood.
If you value this reporting, consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
For advertising & sponsorship opportunities, contact us by clicking below.
It Was Already Raining
Rainmaker did not seed otherwise identical raining and unseeded clouds and then directly measure the difference.
The clouds were already producing natural precipitation.
Rainmaker acknowledges that its purported cloud-seeding effects appeared within:
“weakening, yet ongoing, natural background precipitation.”
That creates a simple problem.
How can Rainmaker know how much of the subsequent precipitation would have fallen anyway?
It can’t directly observe the answer because there is no second version of the same clouds in which the drones never released silver iodide.
So Rainmaker estimated it.
Because natural precipitation surrounded the purported cloud-seeding effects, researchers selected 5 dBZ to represent the background precipitation already occurring and subtracted it from the radar readings before calculating how much precipitation they attributed to seeding.
Rainmaker does not show how its claimed 19 million gallons would change if researchers selected a different reasonable estimate for the natural precipitation already falling.
They then subtracted that assumed natural background from the radar readings.
“5 dBZ was subtracted from all radar gates prior to conversion to liquid-equivalent precipitation.”
Rainmaker says this subtraction:
“provides an estimate of the precipitation enhancement above the surrounding natural precipitation that would otherwise have occurred in the absence of seeding.”
Read that carefully.
Rainmaker did not observe how much rain “would otherwise have occurred.”
Researchers estimated that amount, subtracted it, and treated the calculated remainder as precipitation attributable to their technology.
That calculated remainder became the basis for the claim that Rainmaker had “created” millions of gallons of “net new precipitation.”
Rainmaker Also Decided Which Radar Signals Counted
There is another layer of human judgment between the drones and the 19-million-gallon claim.
After releasing silver iodide, Rainmaker looked for radar patterns appearing in locations and at times consistent with where researchers expected effects from seeding.
The company reports:
“seven unique seeding signatures were identified on radar utilizing the PAHG NEXRAD.”
Rainmaker defines those signatures as:
“visible patterns on radar which result from cloud seeding operations and are distinguishable from natural background precipitation.”
But those patterns did not arrive labeled CLOUD SEEDING on the radar screen.
Researchers had to attribute them to cloud seeding.
Then:
“each signature is manually tracked using polygons drawn independently for each radar volume and elevation angle.”
In plain English, researchers manually drew boundaries around radar patterns they had already determined were caused by their cloud-seeding operations.
Those boundaries were then used to calculate how much precipitation the purported seeding signatures represented.
Rainmaker itself lists “polygon placement” and “possible contamination from weak natural precipitation” among sources of uncertainty.
Radar Became Gallons Through Mathematical Models
Rainmaker still had not measured 19 million gallons of additional water.
It had radar reflectivity.
To turn those radar signals into an amount of precipitation, Rainmaker used 27 mathematical relationships:
“Reflectivity is converted to liquid-equivalent snowfall rate using 27 relationships.”
The company ultimately calculated:
“the mean precipitation volume attributed to seeding was 57.62 acre-feet (71,072 m³), with a 5th–95th percentile range of 41.70–89.35 acre-feet.”
But even that range does not represent all the uncertainty surrounding the calculation.
Rainmaker explicitly says:
“The ensemble spread reflects uncertainty associated with the choice of Z-S relationship, but does not represent total QPE uncertainty.”
It then identifies additional uncertainty involving radar calibration, beam geometry, what happens to precipitation beneath the radar beam, manually drawn boundaries, and contamination from naturally occurring precipitation.
So the process was not:
Drones flew → 19 million additional gallons were measured.
It was:
Drones flew → radar patterns appeared → researchers attributed patterns to seeding → researchers manually defined their boundaries → researchers assumed how much radar signal represented natural precipitation → that amount was subtracted → the remaining radar signal was converted through mathematical models into an estimated volume of water.
That distinction is enormous.
A Nearly 250-Square-Kilometer Claimed Footprint
Rainmaker nevertheless portrays the experiment as demonstrating control over precipitation across a substantial geographic area.
It says:
“The resulting wet area, defined by accumulated seeded precipitation exceeding 0.01 mm, covered 249.53 km².”
And:
“the core of the affected area received more than 1.0 mm of precipitation attributable to seeding.”
The company also says its system can identify purported effects rapidly:
“This ‘physical validation’ approach enables near real-time identification of seeding signatures and quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE).”
That raises questions extending beyond whether Rainmaker’s 19-million-gallon estimate is correct.
Who Gets to Modify the Weather?
Rainmaker’s report describes drones deliberately dispersing approximately 374 grams (.825 pounds or about 13.2 ounces) of silver iodide into the atmosphere while attempting to increase precipitation across part of Alaska.
If the technology works as Rainmaker claims, obvious public-interest questions follow.
Who authorized the intervention?
Who was notified beneath or downwind of the operation?
What environmental monitoring was performed for the dispersed silver iodide?
Were residents given any opportunity to consent or object to deliberate modification of precipitation over their communities?
Who determines where additional precipitation should fall, and who bears responsibility if intentionally altering precipitation produces unintended consequences elsewhere?
And if increasingly capable weather-modification technologies can intentionally influence when and where precipitation falls, the questions eventually extend beyond local environmental policy.
What prevents the same capability from being used strategically against another region or country?
How are cross-border atmospheric effects governed?
At what point does weather modification become a national-security capability?
Rainmaker’s report does not answer those questions.
Nor does the report establish that this particular operation caused environmental or health harm.
Those questions require evidence of exposure, dose, environmental fate, and effects that this validation report does not provide.
But a company deliberately dispersing material into the atmosphere while claiming the ability to alter precipitation makes those questions unavoidable.
The Commercial Claim Deserves Scrutiny, Too
There is another watchdog question.
How much does Rainmaker’s commercial value depend upon convincing customers, investors, governments, or the public that its technology can reliably manufacture additional precipitation?
That makes the distinction between measured water and model-attributed water especially important.
Rainmaker’s methodology gives researchers consequential discretion at multiple stages of the calculation: identifying which radar features count as seeding signatures, manually defining their boundaries, selecting a value to represent natural precipitation, and converting the remaining radar reflectivity into estimated water.
That does not prove Rainmaker manipulated its analysis, committed fraud, or intentionally inflated its results.
But it creates an obvious question that independent scrutiny could answer:
Would Rainmaker’s spectacular 19-million-gallon result survive if independent researchers (not the company claiming success) made those analytical decisions?
What happens if different reasonable natural-background values are used?
What happens if independent scientists draw the radar boundaries?
What happens if candidate radar signatures are evaluated without researchers knowing which clouds were seeded?
And how often does the methodology produce apparent “seeding signatures” in comparable naturally precipitating clouds where no silver iodide was released at all?
Bottom Line
Rainmaker’s experiment establishes something considerably narrower than its headline language suggests.
The company conducted seven drone-based silver iodide releases and subsequently identified seven radar patterns that it says behaved consistently with cloud-seeding effects.
But Rainmaker did not directly observe 19 million gallons of water that would not otherwise have fallen.
The clouds were already raining.
Researchers estimated what portion of the radar signal represented that natural precipitation and subtracted it.
They manually identified and outlined the purported seeding effects.
They converted the remaining radar signal into estimated water using mathematical models.
And Rainmaker acknowledges that even its published uncertainty range does not capture the experiment’s total uncertainty.
Yet the company says its drones “created” “net new precipitation.”
That leaves two problems, not one.
First, Rainmaker is claiming the ability to deliberately alter precipitation by sending drones into the atmosphere to disperse silver iodide, raising fundamental questions about environmental effects, safety, informed consent, who gets to decide when and where weather should be modified, and what happens when those decisions affect people who never agreed to participate.
Second, the evidence Rainmaker offers for that extraordinary capability is weaker than the language it uses to sell the result.
The company did not measure 19 million gallons of water that would not otherwise have fallen.
It estimated how much precipitation was natural, subtracted that estimate from radar readings, made additional analytical judgments about which radar signals belonged to its intervention, and converted the resulting signals into an estimated volume of water.
That distinction matters even more when companies are seeking greater power to deliberately manipulate the environment.
The public is being asked to confront the risks of a technology whose operators claim they can control precipitation while the evidence presented here does not establish that they can do what they say they did.
Rainmaker’s report therefore presents two reasons for scrutiny at once: what the company is attempting to do to the atmosphere and whether it is overstating its ability to do it.
Follow us on Instagram @realjonfleetwood & Twitter/X @JonMFleetwood.
If you value this reporting, consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
For advertising & sponsorship opportunities, contact us by clicking below.
Rainmaker Technology is a private company and does not have a publicly traded stock, ticker symbol, or IPO price.
Investment Access: Shares are not available on public exchanges like the NYSE or Nasdaq; they are considered private securities.
Eligibility: Only accredited investors can purchase shares, typically through secondary trading marketplaces like Nasdaq Private Market or directly with the company.
Funding History: The company raised $6.3 million in a seed round in May 2024 and $25 million in a Series A round led by Lowercarbon Capital in May 2025.
----------
Notice that they are, indeed, raising capital via selling private shares. We all know where this leads: public IPO. This is groundwork for a pump-and-dump or, more likely, pump-and-pivot scam.
Also, allowing companies that are free to spray chemicals into the atmosphere under ANY circumstance is way, way more dangerous than simply changing the weather. Once a group like this exists it will essentially become an NGO with the infrastructure set up to put all sorts of biochemical agents ("vaccines", herbacides, pestacides, bioweapons, surveillance "dust") above us. Once any nefarious schemes become too hot to handle, the government will simply hang some of the owners out to dry and pass all the responsibility onto the "corporation", disavowing all knowledge of what happened. This is what fascism is in textbook form. All NGOs are is fascist infrastructure.
It's always a bad idea to fool with Mother Nature however man always believes 'he knows best.' Always a BIG mistake. The question is, what happens AFTER man alters something that occurs naturally? With all this additional crap thrown into the atmosphere where it doesn't belong, what happens with whatever's left there? What's the unintentional consequence?