BASWhatDoWeNeed - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JuNE1978 BERNARD A. SILVERMAN 871 nitude of the problem and the potential reward, usually tens -to- hundreds of millions of dollars. It is, however, not realistic to think that this will happen very soon. I do not think it will even be possible until a new perspective of weather modification is developed and accepted. I firmly believe that sub- stantially higher levels of funding than are currently being provided; that is, steadily increasing budgets attaining about an order -of- magnitude increase in ten years, will be justified by technology assessments such as the one I recommended for precipitation manage- ment. We should, for the time being, strive for adequate and sustained levels of funding, with the emphasis on the latter (I sometimes feel that the funding of weather modification is as variable as the hydrological fluctuations but 180° out of phase). Because of the complexity and variability in atmo- spheric processes, weather modification research re- quires carefully coordinated efforts over a considerable number of years. These programs should be based on obtaining a clear understanding of the most critical scientific, technical and sociopolitical problems which, in turn, establish the base level of funding for the efforts. Researchers must be assured of stability of at least this base level of funding if they are to wisely plan and execute such programs. Given that opportunity, I believe we will succeed in demonstrating by field experi- mentation the feasibility and value of weather modifica- tion which, in the final analysis, will be the most con- vincing argument in earning expanded financial support for further research and application. 4. A final comment It is my strong belief that researchers, operators and users of weather modification should join in a deliberate and concerted effort to resolve the above - mentioned problems in perspective and thereby change the public image of weather modification that exists today. We will progress and succeed in our individual endeavors only as long as the field of weather modi- fication in general is respected and considered bene- ficial. We must never lose sight of the fact that weather modification is not an end in itself. It is a valuable set of tools in an arsenal of tools that can and should be used effectively to serve many of society's im- portant needs, such as food, fiber and energy produc- tion, recreation, environmental enhancement and life sustenance itself. The new and proper image of weather modification should be promoted on this basis, and activities and their. priorities established accordingly. It occurs to me that a good place to start in creating a new image for weather modification is to abandon the name "weather modification" itself. A more de- scriptive, appealing name having a positive connotation is needed. The term weather modification does not express the sense of desirability and public good that we are trying to convey. Therefore, it enables radical opponents to prey on the emotions of the uninformed public by conjuring up specters related to religion, weather disasters and the like. A positive step forward would be to refer, whenever possible, to the particular activity in terms of its intended purpose, i.e., rain and winter orographic snowpack augmentation (or collectively as precipita- tion management as the Bureau of Reclamation prefers to call it), hail suppression, fog dispersal, etc., and avoid such ambiguous terms as precipitation modification, hurricane modification, etc. Reference to the collection of such activities as a general field of research and technology in more positive terms is, however, the major problem. Mr. Harlan Cleveland, Chairman of the Weather Modification Advisory Board under PL 94 -490, referred to it during his banquet address at the Sixth Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification (10 -13 October, 1977, Champaign- Urbana, I11.) as a "program to enhance the atmospheric environment." In this context I would like to advocate the use of "atmospheric re- sources management" as a frame of reference, which is how the Bureau of Reclamation views weather modification. Our atmospheric resources, e.g., pre- cipitation, wind and sunshine, are renewable and /or inexhaustible components of our nation's natural resources. It should, therefore, be included as a part of a total, integrated system of managing our nation's natural resources along with land, water, minerals, etc. REFERENCE Changnon, S. A., R. J. Davis, B. C. Farhar, J. E. Haas, J. L. Ivens, M. V. Jones, D. A. Klein, D. Mann, G. M. Morgan, S. T. Sonka, E. R. Swanson, C. R. Taylor and J. V. Blok- land, 1977: Hail suppression impacts and issues. Final Report, Technology Assessment of the Suppression of Hail by the Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, .Ill., under National Science Foundation Grant ERP75- 09980, 427 pp.