Laserfiche WebLink
<br />particles may be occurring. Previous investigations, however, have documented seeding effects <br />with aircra052. Aircraft and radiometer measurements were used to validate the cloud model <br />predictions, and showed that the extension of SL W into regions downwind of the Sierra Nevada <br />was under-predicted by the model. The overall findings of the Nevada WDMP revealed that <br />model targeting can be verified by the presence of seeding material in the snowpack, that ice <br />nucleation rather than just scavenging (Section C3a) has been veritied by dual-tracer <br />experiments, and that the potential for a quantitative evaluation of seeding efTects may be <br />realized through chemical and physical measurements of snowfall. <br /> <br />The NRC report on \veather modificationl2 points out a paradox - operational WM has continUl.'iJ <br />unabated, with activities in 24 countries and eleven U.S. states. despite inadequate understanding <br />of critical atmospheric processes. This in turn has led to a scarcity of predictable, detectable and <br />verifiable results. This paradox may be partly explained by the perception among sponsors that <br />potential rewards are greater than the relatively low financial investment required to practice <br />operational weather modification. The NRC further recognizes that there have been major <br />improvements over the last few decades in computing power and modeling, observational <br />technologies. statistical methods, and new seeding materials. But these improvements have not <br />been satisfactorily realized in \\'cather modification, according to the council, bccause of lack of <br />jimdinK ~upp()rr for this field of scicnce in the USA. For cxample, compared to 30 years ago, <br />there has been about a 30-fold reduction in inflation-adjusted dollars being spent on cloud <br />seeding research in the USA. In the last 3 years, less than $500,000 has been directed at research <br />topics that arc specitk to California. <br /> <br />This is where the CEC's PIER program can help. PIER receives funds from California utilities <br />(gas, clectric, telephone, cable) via a small charge on each rate payer's monthly bill. In turn. <br />PIER funds research for the public good of California and its ratepayers. SeE and PG&E have <br />been working with CEC PIER representatives. toward establishing a coordinated PIER research <br />program on the topic of optimizing cloud seeding technologies for California, Thcre is also <br />potential to match PIER research funds with federal research funds for work on cloud seeding <br />tcchnology. <br /> <br />3. Possible methods and evaluation framework <br /> <br />The methods of this section arc c1assitied according to the weather modification issues and <br />developments presented above. flow each method addresses those issues or developments. and <br />potential strengths and ,,,'eaknesses of each approach. are described, <br /> <br />a) Transport and DifTusion of Seeding Materials - ~Iodeling and Observations <br /> <br />As submitted abovc, transport and diffusion (T&D) of seeding materials is widely regarded as <br />the biggest obstacle to their efTectiveness. The complex and dependent physical chain of events <br />must occur in the proper sequence and locations. with sufficient concentrations of effective <br /> <br />19 <br />