Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
1
Introduction
MOTIVATION
Societal interest and investment in weather modification have been driven
historically by the needs ~~ increased water and for reduced damage from hazardous
weather. In many places around the world, freshwater resources are becoming
increasingly strained. Recent analyses find that nearly two billion people are currently
considered subject to severe water shortage, and this number is projected to increase to
over three billion during the next 25 years (Plate 1) Factors such as population growth,
economic development, and global climate change are contributing to this expanding
starless and leading to ever-increasing water use for domestic, industrials and agricultural
purposes. Agriculture alone is responsible for over 70 percent of global freshwater use,
primarily for irrigation (Montaigne, 20021.
During three-quatters of the last century, increases in withdrawals from ground
water reserves ifs the United States exceeded population growth. Economic,
environmental, and governmental factors recently have slowed this imbalance, and there
are encouraging signs that after a sustained 30-year growth in ground water withdrawals
nationwide these to ends now are stabilizing (Figure 1 . 1~. Howeve', a continuing
depletion of croundwater reserves is still occurring in song large aquifers (Figure 1.2',
and water resource needs are increasing rapidly in many other parts of the world. History
is replete with examples of local and regional conflicts over water. Meeting the pressing
need for clean, sustainable, and adequate water supplies will require comprehensive
resource management strategies that include water conservation and efficiency measures,
but there could also be tremendous societal benefits Tom taking actions to increase water
supplies in select areas.
Hazardous weather such as hail, strong thunderstorm and tornadic winds,
hurricanes, lightning, and floods pose a significant threat to life and property. Table 1.
slows the costs of severe weather in the United States in terms of fatalities' injuries, and
property damage. In developing countries with less protective infrastructure, the toll of
severe weather sometimes can be especially devastating; for example, in 1998 Hurricane
Mitch spawned mudslides in Honduras that killed over 10~000 people. Clearly it is
9
OCR for page 10
10
90
Q
80
70
In
o 60
o
U)
lo
-
._
m
._
In
3
-
50
40
30
10
400
:~. 350
300
In
0
~ _ 250
~ ._
_ ~
0 ~
200
0 0
._ ._
_ _
._ ~
m—
~ Q 150
._ O
~ Cal.
3
-
._
100
50 - .
O -
Rural
E1 Industrial
go Public
· Irrigation
' ': :'
1 . .]
1 . .]
1 ' ' . .]
· . .,
it.- . . 1
t.. 1
CRITICAL ISSUES IN WEA THER MODIFICA TION RESEARCH
.
l
1.. ...
1.. ...
1 . .
. . . . .
1' . .
I. ..
; . . .
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975
Year
_ Ground Water
Surface Water
Total Water
Population
. ~
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970
1980 1985 1990 1995
.. , , , ,, . . '
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
FIGURE 1.1 Top figure: Ground-water usage in the United States, by sector. Bottom figure:
Trends in water withdrawals in the United States. SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey (20024.
OCR for page 11
INTRODlJ(-TiON
40
a,
._
in
o
V' ~
a.?
0-]
~:5 a:
:5 o
o ~
V o
_ ._
-
a) ~
—
~ a;'
.>
-
As
-40
-60 - .
Storage accretion
it,
Storage depletion
-
-
1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Year
FIGURE 1.2 Cumulative changes ill ground-water storage since 1987, Higl1 Plains aquifer.
SOURCE: Solve et al. ( 1 998 ).
1 ABLE 1.1 Summary of Natural Hazard Statistics Lloyd 2001 in tile United States
Property Crop Damage
Weather Event Fatalities Injuries (Millions of $) (Millions of $)
Lightning 44 371 43.6 2.0
Tornado 40 743 63 0.1 7.4
Severe thunderstorm 17 341 317.8 6] .0
Hail 0 32 2,368.3 270.4
Floods 48 277 1,220.3 43.0
Coastal storm 53 96 17.7 0
Hurricane 24 7 5,187.8 2
Winter storm 1 8 173 103.6 0.1
67
Fog
I.~
o
High wind
SOURCE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministratiolliNational Weather Selvice Adapted
from http://www.nws noaa.gov/om/severe_weather/sum01.pdf.
98
63.8
OCR for page 12
12
CRITIC,4 L I`SSlJES IN TYE-A Ti-lER AfOD JFI(-~ T10V REtSEARCH
important to mitigate society's vulnerability to hazardous weather through actions such as
improving construction standards for buildings, relocating, residents from hazard-prone
al eas, and providing more accurate warnings. However there might be substantial
additional societal benefits to reducing the intensity or occurrence of hazardous weather
events through direct interventions in atmospheric processes.
Whether or not methods for weather modification ultimately prove effective in
providing significant benefits, these expanding, societal stresses and threats will continue
to make periodic reassessment of the science and technology underlying weather
modification a national need. Searching for ways to enhance precipitation and mitigate
hazardous weather is one of the most important challenges that could be tackled by
science. Even relatively minor changes in weather could be of profound benefit. This
possibility was recognized immediately upon reports of the first cloud-seeding
experiments: In congressional hearings in 1951, Dr. Vannevar Bush, president of the
Carnegie Institute, testified, "I have become convinced that it is possible under certain
circumstances to nuke rain. As it stands today, we are on the threshold of an exceedingly
important matter, for man has begun for the first time to affect the weather in which he
lives, and no man can tell where such a move finally will end.~, (U.S. H.R., 1953).
BOX 1.1
Socio-economic Implications of Weather Modification
The Committee's charge calls for this study to focus on research and
operational issues and instructs it not to address the policy implications of
weather modification. Althougl~ the Committee has not investigated policy and
related socio-economic issues (e.g., liability concerns, cost-benefit analyses,
societal attitudes), it recognizes that the motivational factors fot applied research
and operational activities in weather modification are intimately linked to these
issues. For instance, weather modification is aimed primarily at controlling the
spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation? which can potentially raise
contentious liability issues (i.e., the metaphoric "robbing Peter to pay Paul")
Furthermore' societal attitudes toward "tampering with nature" are often linked
to steed; people living in drought-prone or water-stressed regions will do what
they deem necessary out of desperation. The Committee believes that sound'
validated scientific research results can ultimately provide the critical answers
needed to address these political and socio-economic issues appropriately.
In addition, the Committee recognizes that even if significant, reliable
precipitation enhancement techniques were to eventually become feasible (em., if
it becomes possible to increase rainfall by up to 20 percent everywhere that is
needed) this alone is unlikely to provide a long-ten solution for water resources
in areas of the world that are most water stressed. There are a variety of proven,
cost-effective societal and technological approaches (e.g., water conservation,
precision irrigation, improved building codes in coastal areas) that undoubtedly
will continue to play an important role in water resource management and hazard
. . .
m~t~gat~o~.
OCR for page 13
iN7 RODZJ(-TJON
13
This quotation illustrates the initial enthusiasm for cloud seeding As late as
1978, the Department of Commerce Weather Modification Advisory Board (1978)
reported that "a usable technology for significantly entrancing rain and snow and
ameliorating some weather damage is scientifically possible and within sight.', This
conclusion ultimately proved to be too optimistic regarding the time required to realize
that possibility, in part because the recommended research program was not pursued
(Lambright and Changnon, 19891. The stated goals, however, remain as real today as
they were when these statements were first made.
Since that time, weather modification has largely been relegated to the realm of
promises unfulfilled. Weather modification does not appear as a line item in the budget of
any federal agency—although closely related topics such as cloud physics, water
management, and climate change are being pursued and no work is being done on the
complex social and economic implications of attempts to modify weather (see Box 1 14.
Yet people in drought-prone areas willingly spend significant resources in support of
cloud seeding to increase rain, and commercial operations for increasing mountain
snowpack have been supported continuously far many years (Plate 21. But all the while,
science is unable to say with assurance which, if any, seeding techniques produce
positive effects. In the 55 years following the first cloud-seeding demonstrations,
substantial progress has been made in understanding the natural processes that account
for our daily weather. Yet scientifically acceptable proof for significant seeding effects
has not been achieved, and the scientific challenges have proved to be significantly mole
formidable and complex than perceived initially.
CLOUD PHYSICS
Most attempts at modifying weather in the modern era have aimed at initiating
the onset, or accelerating the rates of. the physical-chemical processes involved in
precipitation formation. Significant amounts of precipitation can occur only when low-
level atmospheric convergence and upward movement of ail parcels provide water vapor
for conversion into cloud drops. Thus, a complete u~derstandi~g of the formation of
natural precipitation requires understanding the dynamics of atmospheric motions as well
as the physical processes governing formation and growth of cloud and precipitation
particles
The physical processes taking place within a cloud that lead to precipitation are
very complex and depend, among other things' on the number and characteristics of
aerosol particles in the cloud-forming air. The atmosphere contains a tremendous amount
of particulate matter from a wide variety of natural arid anthropogenic sources. These
include, for example, soot, sea salt, volcanic ash, wind-blown sand and dust,
biogenical]y-derived materials such as pollens and spores, and a variety of sulfur,
nitrogen, and carbon compounds (which often result from industrial pollution, biomass
burning, and other combustion processes). Soluble and hydrophilic particles absorb water
and can eventually act as CCN. Some insoluble particles with wettable surfaces may
adsorb water and serve as large cloud drop nuclei or ice nuclei. Some insoluble particles
have a crystalline structure that provides an efficient starting place for ice crystals to
OCR for page 14
14
CRITICAL ILSSUES IN [YE-A TlIER AlODIFl(.=ATJONREtSEARCT-J
grow and thus are referred to as ice nuclei (IN); the exact composition of most IN is not
well known.
Differences in flee initial population of atmospheric aerosols affect the cloud
particle and cloud drop populations, which subsequently affect the amount of
precipitation reaching the ground. There is considerable uncertainty as to just how the
various IN and CCN activate' how concentrations vary of giant CCN or ultra-giant
particles (UGP) and their impact on coalescence broadening, how cloud particles interact
and evolve by collision and breakup processes? how winds and electric fields in a cloud
evolve and affect the growth and interaction of cloud particles, arid how individual clouds
interact among other fundamental questions.
There are severa] different physical pathways (often called mechanisms) through
which precipitation may form in natural clouds. Local conditions of updraft speed,
temperature, pressures initial aerosol characteristics' and cloud and precipitations particle
concentrations arid size distributions govern the rates of progress along these pathways.
Several mechanisms may be active simultaneously, each affecting the others. Often orate
of the mechanisms proceeds fastest than the others and becomes dominant. For the
purposes of this report, and at the rislc of oversimplification, it is useful to group these
mechanisms into those that involve the formation of ice particles and those that do not.
The so-called coalescence mechanism or warm-cloud precipitation
mechanism is an all-liquid process wherein raindrops Tom by the merging of the cloud
droplets (Bower, 1950; Ludlam, 1951; Young, ]9754. This mechanism proceeds most
rapidly in clouds having a high liquid water content (LWC) and a broad spectrum of
cloud drops. The sources and characteristics of atmospheric aerosol particles capable of
forming drops large enough to initiate the coalescence mechanism are largely unknown
and the subject of much research. Typical conditions for the formation of collision-
coalescence rain are (a) convective clouds with bases warmer than about +15°C and
accompanying large LWC and (b) stratified clouds of sufficient lifetimes that are too
warm to initiate ice particles on the existing IN. Coalescence rain occurs when drops
grow large enough to fall to the Earth before they are carried by the updraft to levels cold
enough to cause them to freeze.
The so-called Bergeron ( 1 935J mechanism—or cold-cloud mechanism -
postulates the nucleation of ice particles in supet cooled clouds followed by their growth
by vapor diffusion into snow particles. Unde~^ favorable conditions they may aggregate as
snow or rime to form low-density graupel or snow pellets. This mechanism was first
postulated by Bergeron,' building on earlier work by Alfred Wegener7 and developed into
a conceptual model of precipitation by Findeisen (19381. The sources and characteristics
of natural IN are largely unknown. In general this mechanism may be important in clouds
of all types where temperatures are colder than about -1 5°C, including the upper parts of
cumulonimbus clouds at all seasons and latitudes. It accounts for most wintertime snow.
~ Bergeron first gave his paper before the Lisbon meeting of the International Union of Geodesy
and Geophysics on September 19, 1933, belt it was not published until 1935.
OCR for page 15
1,~7 ROD{J(-TION
Ice may also form in clouds through the freezing of drops. It is well
established
that the probability of drop freezing is inversely proportional to temperature and directly
proportional to drop size. Thus, large drops are more likely to freeze at warmer
temperatures than smaller ones. The nature and concentrations of nuclei capable of
inducing drop freezing (fieezing nuclei, FN) are largely unknown and the subject of
current research. A variant of the warns rain ~necl~anism sometimes called the
coa]escence-fireezing mechanism—comes into play in clouds having both an active
coalescence n~echanisn~ and an updraft strong enough to carry drizzle drops upward to
levels where they freeze through the action of EN In many situations this may occur at
temperatures as warm as-5°C to-10°C. Upon freezing, the drizzle drops become small
ice pellets. Further growth through riming with cloud drops produces high-density
graupel and small hail These particles then melt into raindrops upon descending below
the 0°C-level This mechanistic appears to be very important ill convective clouds having
bases warmer than about +1 5°C arid Title low s~b-cloud CCN concentrations.
under certain cloud conditions the process of rinsing Nay result in the creation of
small ice particles (so-called secondary ice particles, SIP) in numbers vastly exceeding
the original number of ice nuclei. Although the details of this process are still a matter of
research, this mechanism may be very important in natural precipitation. The occurrence
of SIP was first elucidated from physical measurements obtained in a scientific cloud-
seedin~, experiment and is still the subject of research (~Hoffer and B~aham, 1962;
Koenig, 1963;Braham, 1964,1986a;HalletandMossop, 19741.
Cloud physicists now have relatively cleats pictures of the physics involved in
these three precipitation mechanisms. It is possible that the majority of clouds of all types
represent mole complex situations, but conceptual cloud-seeding models usually are
based on one of these three models.
FIRST EXPERIMENTS AND FIRST CONTROVERSIES
In the mid-1940s laboratory and field experiments by Drs Vincent Schaefer,
Irving Langmuir, and Bernard Vonnegut of the Genera] Electric Laboratory demonstrated
that dry-ice and silver-iodide smokes were excellent ice nucleants, and that when released
into supercooled stratus clouds, the treated regions were gradually converted into large
numbers of tiny ice crystals. These demonstrations appeared to give strong support for
the Bergeron mechanism. Even at the time of the 1946-1947 experiments it was well
known that the clouds used in those demonstrations contained so little water that even if
all of it reached the ground, the amount of rain (or snow) would be insignificant.
Meteorologists were aware that useful amounts of precipitation required deep cloud
layers with updrafts and continued inflow of moist air' and that natural precipitation
results from a progression of and complex interactions between microphysical processes
and cloud dynamical processes
The unbridled enthusiasm of Dr. Langmu~r for what might be possible through
closed seeding and the potential legal liability implications of the early experiments led
the General Electric Company to discontinue field experiments, and in 1947 to negotiate
a contract for further fieldwork to be carried out by the military with Dr. Langmuir and
OCR for page 16
16
CRITIC,4 L [ISSUES IN [YEA TI-IER A10DIFICA TION RELSEARCI-I
Dr. Schaefer as technical consultants. This effort came to be called Project Cirrus
(Havens et al., 19781. The results of Project Cirrus were widely distributed and the
participants were not shy in reporting the potential of cloud seeding. Dr. Langmuir was a
world-renowned scientist, and his speculations as to bloat Plight be accomplished by
seeding clouds commanded attention. By this time collision and coalescence were
recognized as important for producing rain; combined with Langmuir's chain reaction
theory, which deems good collection efficiencies as necessary for inducing precipitation
from warren clouds (Langmuir, 1948y, it is not surprising that solve scientists and large
numbers of the populace accepted the proposition that seeding of clouds might increase
rainfall and also perhaps mitigate the vagaries of severe weather. The combination of a
few overly enthusiastic scientists, an active press, and a receptive populous (especially in
drougl~t-prone areas) quickly resulted in a worldwide commercial industry devoted to
cloud seeding, and act era of great interest arid concern among governmental and
scientific organizations.
These early days of cloud seeding were described by J. C. Oppenheimer of the
Advisory Committee on Weather Control (ACWC, 1 957 J as follows:
Within two years after Langmuir's and SchaeJer's historic experiment in 1946 of
seeding clouds with dry ice, and the beginning of governmental research, a
number of commercial cloud-seeding companies were organized. Exorbitant
claims by some seeding organizations and scientists led to sharp differences of
opinion as to the economic benefits of seeding activities. Various aspects of this
controversy came to the attention of Congress. Between 1951 and 1953,
Congressional hearings on several bills dealing with cloud seeding revealed that
farmers, ranchers, electric utilities, municipalities and other water users were
paying 2 cents to 20 cents per acre, and annually were spending between $3
million and $5 million on weather modification activities covering approximately
l0 per cent of the land area of the nation....As a result of this lengthy
consideration, the Advisory Committee on Weather Control was established by
an Act of 13 August 1953.
Findings of this committee are considered below. Other details of the history of these
early days of cloud seeding can be found in Byers (1974), Elliott (1974), and McDonald
(19561.
AN EMERGING INDUSTRY AND DEVELOPING PUBLIC CONCERN
Initial cloud-seeding experiments were conducted from airplanes flying in or
slightly above the cloud target. With the subsequent development of devices for releasing
silver iodide particles from ground generators, the cost of seeding operations became
quite nominal. This led immediately to widespread efforts to increase rain by operating
ground generators upwind of the target areas.
With low unit costs and the implicit assumption that cloud seeding could do no
harm, and at the worst would be ineffective, the industry grew almost overnight. The
commercial operations were paralleled by programs in the Bureau of Reclamation (which
OCR for page 17
{NTRODZJCTiON
17
was to become a major supporter of weather modifications studies), the Weather Bureau'
the Department of Defense, and others. Almost immediately cloud-seeding programs
sprang up in Australia, France' Israel, and South Africa. There also was a renewed
interest in hail suppression in Alpine countries where such programs were already under
way. By 1951 weather modification programs were active in about 30 countries
In the confident belief that seeding would produce a positive effect (such as art
increase in rain or decrease in hail), project sponsors required the commercial operators
to seed every available opportunity. In commercial operations there was no loom for
randomization of cloud treatments. Many projects lasted only one or two seasons. Few if
any made provision for measuring the physical variables associated with rain formation
in their seeded clouds. As ~ result rigorous proof of a seeding effect in the commercial
cloud-seeding projects was very difficult at best, and generally not possible.
The commercial seeding operators provided reports to their sponsors. These
reports typically contained an estimate of flee seeding effects, usually based on
comparison with a pre-seeding period, perhaps with a nearby area not used in their
project. The inability of commercial operators to demonstrate positive seeding effects
beyond a shadow of doubt gradually led to a skepticism arid demand for more convincing
evidence. In a number of hail suppression programs a reduction in damage claims led
insurance companies and farmers to continue seeding. Nevertheless, the number and
volume of commercial projects began to decline. By about 1 956-1 957 it had reached a
leve] of about one-f~urth of its peal<.
The rapid expansion of the seeding industry, with claims of seeding effects that
could not be rigorously substantiated and for which there was only a sketchy theory and
questionable physical evidence, deepened the split between meteorologists and those
supporting the seeding efforts. A few of the commercial companies? l~owever, made an
effort to deal openly with these problems. These companies survived and contributed
substantially to increased knowledge about the seedability of clouds. Yet even today the
words "weather modification" and "cloud seeding" conjure up images of alchemy and
charlatans.
THE PIONEERING EXPERIMENTS
In the early 1940s most meteorologists had little background in the physics and
chemistry of cloud particles' but some of those who entered the field from other physical
and engineering sciences during the wartime training programs saw the possibility that
cloud seeding might prove useful as a tool for probing the inner workings of clouds.
Recognition of the great potential benefits that might accrue from proven weather
modification techniques prompted the Weather Bureau and scientific research units in the
U.S Army, Navy, and Air Force to consider experiments to clari: the potential for cloud
seeding. In ] 947 the Weather Bureau launched its Cloud Seeding Project, which included
176 non-randomized airplane releases of dry-ice pellets into the tops of supercooled
stratified clouds over Ohio and the Sierra Nevadas and into convective clouds over Ohio
and along the Gulf Coast Results were inconclusive
OCR for page 18
IN'
CRITIC,4 L [LSSUF,5 IN {YEA TI--IER AJODIFICA 7'10N REtSE-ARCI-f
One of the early experiments, organized ilk 1951, was the Artificial Cloud
Nucleation Project (Petterssen, 1957~. Results of randomized seeding were generally
inconclusive' except for showing that water splay seeding of tropical cumuli speeded the
onset oil precipitation. Subsequent studies suggested that total precipitations from fleece
clouds may have been decreased, because the seeding and earlier onset of precipitation
shortened the time available for creation of cloud water (Braham et ah, 19574. Other
projects followed, with meteorologists joined by chemists' physicists, and engineers, and
with generous support from tile Departments of Defense, Interior, and Co~nn~erce and flee
National Science Foundation (NSF). Under the umbrella of cloud seeding, scientists
mounted field and laboratory efforts that led to a breathtaking increased understanding of
the microphysics and dynamics of clouds. In an effort to put cloud seeding on a more
rigorous foundation, several university and government groups launched major studies of
clouds and their reaction to seeding.
Some of the most productive studies during this petiod included randomized
seeding trials with accompanying physical measurements using the most modern tools
available at the time Measurements were made in both seeded and non-seeded clouds
Some of these experiments were "double blind," such that the group conducting the
seeding did not collect and analyze the rainfall data, while those involved in the analysis
had no knowledge of Allen and where seeding had taken place (em, the Missouri Project
Whitetop). Typically these experiments ran for several seasons. Results were mixed.
None of these experiments provided incontrovertible evidence that seeding was effective;
many suggested rainfall increases (or hail decreases) from seeded clouds but a few
suggested rainfall decreases. They suggested' but did not prove, that any change in
precipitation resulting from seeding would likely be limited to several percent, much less
than the original claims by some non-scientific operations
The programs of physical measurements greatly expanded knowledge about
cloud processes and led to a number of important scientific findings: demonstration of the
power of numerical modeling of targeted seeding of cumuli; realization that the
coalescence mechanism operated in warm season clouds in mid-latitudes and was not
restricted to the tropics; and that drizzle drops that had formed by coalescence often froze
and began growth by riming, at temperatures as warm as -5°C to ~1 0°C (this led to the
recognition of a coalescence-freezing mechanism, and in some conditions the production
of secondary ice particles). There were early suggestions that the latent heat released by
seeding-induced freezing of liquid cloud water could prolong the life of the cloud,
leading to more rain than would otherwise have been delivered. These and other
observations led to the possibility that increases in cloud downdrafts and sub-cloud
outflow caused by seeding may prolong the lifetime of the cloud complex as a whole,
although the exact mechanisms for this continue to be unknown.
THE NEED FOR IMPARTIAL ASSESSMENT OF SEEDING RESULTS
The rapid growth of the commercial cloud-seeding industry, extravagant claims
of seeding effects from some commercial operations, and the inherent weaknesses in their
assessments raised widespread concern. Thus, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
the NSF, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society
OCR for page 19
iNTRODZJCTJON
19
(AMS) all undertook in-depth examinations of cloud seeding. Papers on cloud physics
began to appear at scientific meetings. Entire conferences were devoted to the subject,
and many of these became the battleground between seeding proponents and opponents.
In virtually every case there was ~ plea for basic ~ esearch to enhance scientific
understanding of cloud processes as a prerequisite for intelligent cloud-seeding
operations.
There was a movement toward independent assessment of the reports of
commercial cloud-seeding operations. This involved analyses (or reanalyses) of project
findings by persons not involved in the original project and if possible using data
collected independently from the original project. The first such assessment was
conducted by the President's ACWC. Captain Howard T. Orville, USN (ret.), chaired this
committee, and its final report was submitted to the President in December 1957
(AC WC, 19574. The ACWC hired climatologist-statisticia~ Herbert Thom and assisted
by a group of outstanding, statisticians to conduct an independent assessment (reanalysis)
of 12 sl~ort-term commercial silver-iodide seeding operations. They concluded that
winter-season west-coast orographic precipitation was increased an average of 14
percent, significant at the 99 percent level (oc=0.01~. But operations in other seasons and
areas did not give conclusive evidence for a seeding effect. The ACWC made a strong
plea for increased support of those sciences Blat were basic to understandings, clouds and
cloud systems.
In 1963 the NAS appointed a Panel on Weather and Climate Modification to
"undertake a deliberate and thoughtful review of the present status and activities in this
field, and of its potential and limitations for the future." The panel, chaired by Gordon J.
F. MacDonald, issued a preliminary report in 1964 (NRC, 1964) in which it concluded
that
it has not been demonstrated that precipitation from winter orographic storms can
be increased significantly by seeding....We conclude that the initiation of large-
seale operational weather modification programs would be premature. Many
fundamental problems must be answered first. It is unlikely that these problems
will be solved by the expansion of present efforts, which emphasize the a
posterior) evaluation of largely uncontrolled experiments. We believe that the
patient investigation of atmospheric processes coupled with an exploration of the
technological applications will eventually lead to useful weather modification,
but we must emphasize that the time-scale r equired for success may be measure ed
in decades.
The panel's final report (NRC, 1966i included a number of recommendations
concerning the support and infrastructure needed for research in weather modification. It
also sponsored two independent evaluations of a small number of commercial seeding
operations Concerning their reanalysis of 14 short-duration, groulld-genel-ator operations
in the eastern United States, they found indications of a positive seeding effect. However,
"results of these fourteen projects...cannot by themselves be regarded as conclusive
evidence of the efficacy of seeding; yet taken together they seem to us to be a new
indication of positive effect, warranting optimism." The panel also sponsored an analysis
using seasonal runoff data as the test variate in four west-coast winter-season orographic
OCR for page 20
20
CRIT/C,4 L I`SSlJES IN THEA TITER A10DIFI(-~,4 TION RESEARCI-l
seeding operations totaling 41 years of operations. It tuned overall runoff increases of
about 12 percent, statistically sig~iiicant at the 96 percent level (oc-0.04~.
The NSF issued a series of annual reports on weather modification research and
evaluation between 1959 and 1964. In 1964 the National Science Board appointed a
Special Commission of Weather Modification, chaired by Dr. A. R. Chamberlain, Chicle
found that '~supercooled fog on the grouted can be dissipated. No practica] approach to the
dissipation of wartn fog is at hand." Also, "while the evidence is still somewhat
ambiguous, there is support leer the view that precipitation fiom some types of clouds can
be increased by the order of ten percent by seeding. If the results are confirmed by further
studies they would have great significance. The question of corresponding decreases of
precipitation outside the target area is unresolved." It suggests that 'advanced
experimental techniques and application of sophisticated concepts in statistical design
promise to reduce the present uncertainty in flee ;nterpretatior~ of field experiments"
(NSF, 1965)
In 1973 the NAS Review Panel on Weather and Climate Modification (T.F
Malone, chair) issued a report titled "Weather and Climate Modification, Problems and
Progress." Based on the results of several randomized experimental seeding programs
conducted after the 1966 NAS report' the panel concluded that
it
cc-nuclei seeding can sonnetizes lead to more precipitation, can sometimes lead
to less precipitation, arid at other times.. have no effect....lt is concluded that the
r ecent demonstration of both positive and negative effects fit om seeding
convective clouds emphasizes the complexity of the processes involved.A..A
more careful search must be made to determine the seedability criteria that apply
to the convective clouds over various climatic regions....The Panel concludes
that there is a pressing need for furthet analyses of the areal extent of seeding
effects under a variety of meteorological and topographical situations and for
investigations into the physical mechanisms that ale responsible for any such
effects.
Concerning hail reduction and mitigation of severe weather hazards, the panel
noted the need for further research (NRC. 19739.
Even before these teports were published, papers appealed in the scientific
literature pointing to sources of bias and other technical problems that had not been
considered that could invalidate conclusions. If anything, the split between those who
believed in the immediate application of cloud seeding and those who believed that such
actions were premature only widened and deepened.
In response to the National Weather Modification Act of 1976 (PL 94-490) the
Secretary of the Department of Commerce appointed the Weather Modification Advisory
Board' chaired by Harlan Cleveland, to take an in-depth look at cloud seeding. Its two-
volume final report was submitted in 1978. That committee found that the major task
ahead was to learn more about the atmosphere and processes within it. To this end it
urged an increase in federal support for meteorology and other sciences important to this
effort. Concerning the status of cloud seeding the Committee found that
OCR for page 21
JNTRODZJCTION
21
the experimental evidence for cloud seeding has not yet reached the levels of
objectivity, repeatability, and predictability required to establish new knowledge
and techniques. There are, however, several lines of evidence suggesting that
carefully controlled seeding, using means appropriate to the aims, will result in
weather modification effects of useful dimensions. tVol. 1, p. 35.]
Several assessments of individual seeding projects, or groups of projects, have
been made by individual scientists familiar with cloud physics and cloud seeding but not
directly involved with flee projects they assess. Generally speaking, these outlooks cattle to
the view that cloud-seeding experiments have not yet provided the evidence required to
establish scientific validity, though the prospects are promising and worth pursuing.
After dale consideration our Committee finds little reasons to differ from these
findings This is due in part to the lacl; of concerted research in weather modification. It
has beer three decades since the last NRC report on weather modification In the interim
there have beets improvements in the understanding of cloud processes and significant
development of tools and techniques, including computational power, statistical analyses,
and remote sensing ot: cloud systems. These opportunities mandate a fresh look at the
status and potential of weather modification.
OCR for page 22
Representative terms from entire chapter:
cloud seeding
