RoD_WesternWeather - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r . fundamental problems must be answered first." The NAIWMC maintains that many fundamental issues have been substantively addressed since 1964. Fast-acting,efficient seeding agents have been developed,convective cloud transport and dispersion processes have been quantified, chemical tracer analysis of orographic programs has shown strong cause and effect,and innovative evaluation procedures have been developed and utilized. Though weather modification may not stand up to the kind of rigorous,even unreasonable,standards of scientific proof advocated by the NRC,many pragmatic organizations and institutions have recognized weather modification as a viable water and/or risk management tool. The American Society of Civil Engineers has published rigorously reviewed guidelines and standards and practice procedures for precipitation enhancement and hail suppression(ASCE Manual No. 81; EWRI/ASCE 39-03 and 42-04). A third document on fog dispersal is nearing publication. The Canadian insurance industry is the sole sponsor of a cloud seeding program in Alberta, specifically designed to suppress hail and thereby mitigate property loss. We believe the NRC report attempts to hold weather modification to a higher standard of proof than is applied to other technologies. Many aspects of the disciplines of meteorology and climatology would likewise fail the test of scientific proof advocated by NRC. Weather forecasting cannot meet the statistical and reproducible standards imposed on weather modification,yet attempts to forecast weather in advance must be maintained despite the imperfections of the science. We believe the NRC suggestion of a moratorium on cloud seeding operations is not only unrealistic,it ignores the avalanche of evidence pointing to its benefits. Moreover,the ravages of chronic drought and the persistent lack of fresh water to promote economic growth and development in the semi-arid western U. S. are compelling arguments for sustaining,even accelerating,the development of atmospheric water resources. The assertion by the NRC that future efforts concentrate on basic research to the neglect of application of new technologies until"understanding"is achieved is untenable. This notion again largely ignores the needs of the current operational community and the immediate benefits applied research could offer. Some basic research may be necessary,but we believe future weather modification research would yield greater success through a synergistic approach with operational programs. On this point the NRC seems to agree,since its final recommendation is that efforts "Capitalize on existing field facilities and developing partnerships among research groups and select operational programs." We suggest that a future research program be fashioned along the lines of the prior NOAA Atmospheric Modification Program(AMP),a federal/state partnership that would couple federal resources with operational programs in a direct effort to improve the efficacy of weather modification operations. In conclusion,the NRC is correct in stating that "weather modification should be viewed as a fundamental and legitimate element of atmospheric and environmental science' Research has shown increasing evidence that we may be inadvertently affecting our weather and climate through a variety of means. It seems reasonable that if we can affect negative changes to weather by inadvertent means,we also have the potential to produce positive changes by intentional means. The growing worldwide need for fresh water and protection from drought and hail damage warrants our best efforts to use the technologies now available while working diligently to refine and improve them. The time has come for a concerted national effort to take our present weather modification capabilities to the next level.