My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WMOD00503
CWCB
>
Weather Modification
>
DayForward
>
WMOD00503
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2009 2:40:20 PM
Creation date
4/24/2008 2:48:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Weather Modification
Title
Seeding of Winter Orographic Clouds: A Viable Technology for Precipitation Enhancement?
Weather Modification - Doc Type
Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Til i;-; ;hC'(~t f 0 he 'j"C'dllC('d to <br />77~: (11 -il-:, Pi-Ci-;l:jll. f;f;~(I. <br /> <br />MIS COpy SHEET <br />,,~ <br /> <br />:\innu!~:cx.LpL rihould he t-yprcl IIp lP <br />left ;JncI ri..~~hl 11l:::U~.P,iil~i. 1)0 11llt <br />exceed maygin. <br /> <br />R [nI'l' <br /> <br />LEFt <br /> <br />water managers appear to be unwilling to budget for the-- <br />additional monies required (possibly comparable to the <br />actual cost of conducting the seeding) to determine if <br />seeding is producing precipitation increases. Their <br />reluctance may be an indication of how much commitment <br />there is to the current technology. <br /> <br />With such widespread use of a cloud seeding <br />technology, what advancements are required? The physical <br />evidence developed from winter mountain clouds indicates <br />that there is definite potential for enhancing precipitation <br />within these clouds. There is also reason to believe, based <br />on the knowledge that there is limited transport and <br />dispersion of both aerial and ground released seeding <br />material, that programs now being'conducted could be <br />substantially improved. The most serious limitation to <br />tapping the SLW is the lack of an adequate seeding <br />delivery system. Improvements could come from <br />increasing the number.,f seeding delivery devices and by <br />utilizing seeding agents active at warmer temperatures <br />(from 0 to -10 oc). The seeding system must reliably and <br />continuously supply the proper amount and type of seeding <br />agent (depending on SLW ~perature) to the cloud to <br />effect a sufficient volume to produce economically useful <br />amounts of precipitation. A major improvement in seeding <br />agent delivery would be a significant brqkthrough in <br />advancing a seeding technology. <br /> <br />. Unfortunately, the problems that plague the <br />adoption of cloud seeding as a viable and accepted <br />technology today are the same ones as described by <br />Simpson and Silverman in 1978. Our inability to resolve <br />the differences of opinion between the scientific community <br />and the user community continues to promote confusion <br />among the public. Is it because we have not resolved the <br />remaining scientific questions about cloud seeding in an <br />acceptable fashion? Undoubtedly, the answer is yes. For <br />this reason and because of the growing water shortages in <br />the West, it is imperative we determine a method for <br />reaching a satisfactory answer. <br /> <br />The SCPP was an attempt to address this issue by <br />developing a "cooperative program" between the scientific <br />I <br /> <br />community; existing operational programs in the area of <br />study, and the State of California, who would be an <br />ultimate user of the technology. For a number of reasons, <br />the 1e:vel of participation by both the operational sector and <br />the State of California diminished substantially as the <br />program evolved. One reason for this was the reluctance <br />of tht~ scientists to pursue the more operational <br />requirements of the cooperators rather than their desire to <br />collect basic data on cloud and precipitation processes. <br />The State of California withdrew due to a change in their <br />administration. The new administration did not support <br />. weather modification. The idea behind SCPP was sound, <br />but was not brought to fruition. It is time for such a <br />program. <br /> <br />i' <br /> <br />It does not appear that one agency, be it the Federal <br />Government, the State of California or a large water <br />district like Metropolitan Water District of Los Angeles <br />will provide the funds required to prove the efficacy of <br />winter cloud seeding. However I believe that with modest <br />contributions by entities with a common interest in this <br />question, a demonstration program designed and organized <br />around existing programs such as the State of California's <br />Lake Oroville Runoff Enhancement Program, and/or <br />PG&E's Lake Almanor program could provide substantial <br />results in a just a few years. Several reasons can be given <br />for this conclusion: 1) substantial improvements in <br />observational capabilities now allow direct observations of <br />seeding effects (see Super, 1992 this conference), 2) by <br />piggy..backing on existing programs, long delays in <br />establilshing new seeding programs because of the <br />environmental process could be avoided, 3) there has <br />already been a substantial investment in seeding dispenser <br />development, placement, and determination of the transport <br />of seeding material to SLW regions of the cloud. If studies <br />like these are not done, misconceptions about the <br />environmental effects of cloud seeding might force the <br />shutdown of several long-term seeding programs in the <br />Sierra Nevada. This may be the most important <br />justification for a demonstration program, even to the true <br />believl~rs of the technology. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Table 1. List of Operational Cloud Seeding Programs in California Designed After Completion of a <br />Randomized Seeding Experiment <br /> <br />F::;:;-~'-l~';;;':''';-- -- . - -;;,;,..,.." ,",'-~.:,:" """I ,~;...;:; ~;';',::-l <br />I \"",111'1 ',1 It"" Il,lIulumi:rl'd l"'1"'I.llil1l\.r1 :: <br />jl PIU~~I.IrI' ~.1.:n~ (-1I1:r..n, :1 <br />---- --.-----.----.-----. -------... <br />Upper American Sacramento CENSARE 1\l74-Present Power <br />River Municipal Utility 1969.1973 (Using same <br /> District (Rowland. 1973) d,..ign) <br />Tahoe- Truckee Stale of Nevada Pyramid Project 15179- Present Waler <br /> 1970-1975 <br /> (Squires, 1977) <br />Walker-Carson State of Nevada Pyramid Project 11'79- Present Water <br />Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 1 \'78- Present Water <br /> County Convective Band <br /> Project 1956-1960 <br /> 1967-1973 <br /> (Thompson et ai, <br /> 1975) <br />Middle Fork California Dept. of Sierra CooperativG 1991 Water and Power <br />Feather Water Resources Pilot Project 1976- <br /> 1987 (Reynolds <br /> and Dennis, 1986) <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />i <br />____.1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.