My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WMOD00063
CWCB
>
Weather Modification
>
Backfile
>
WMOD00063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2009 2:27:39 PM
Creation date
10/1/2006 2:12:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Weather Modification
Applicant
Steven M. Hunter
Sponsor Name
California Energy Commission
Project Name
Optimizing Cloud Seeding for Water and Energy in California
Title
Optimizing Cloud Seeding for Water and Energy in California
Prepared For
California Energy Commission
Prepared By
Steven M. Hunter
Date
3/31/2006
State
CA
Country
United States
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.
/
53
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 />conservatively estimated that all the California seeding projects generate an additional 4% or <br />300,000-400,000 acre-feet of water annually22. <br /> <br />The long period of record for California seeding projects has allowed a statistical analysis of <br />their effectiveness (Appendix A of Silverman). This analysis was based on streamflow data <br />from the Lake Almanor, Upper American. Mokelumne River, Kings River. Kaweah River, Kern <br />River. and Eastern Sierra operational cloud seeding programs. Silverman used the regression <br />ratio statistic:!), '....hich he adjusted for biases that can occur when operational data are compared <br />to historical records in an a IXJSterior; evaluation of non-randomized seeding programs. The <br />results of this analysis support the claim of seeding-indue cd increases in streaml10w of more than <br />5% in the Sierras. at least before 1990. <br /> <br />3. Declines in Seeding Effectiveness and Possible Causes <br /> <br />The aforementioned analysis (Appendix A) also found a disturbing decline in seeding <br />effectiveness since about 1990. The decline was more dramatic in watersheds of the southern <br />Sierra Nevada than those of the northern Sierra. The overall sccding elfects through 2003 in the <br />northern watersheds decreased. but were still positive and statistically significant. In some of the <br />southern watersheds, however, the positi....e seeding clfects found aner 1990 were diluted. and <br />there was no longer any statistical evidence of a seeding signal. The analysis further showed a <br />'....arming atmosphere since 1950. and speculated that this wanning might have contributed to the <br />declines in seeding effectiveness. In ....iew of the signi lieanec of these findings. further statistical <br />studies should be conducted using program-specific controls and additional targets in order to <br />eonfinn or revise. as necessary, the statistical results of this preliminary analysis. There is <br />considerable evidence that atmospheric warming will continllclO. Silver iodide is only clfective <br />at temperatures of about -SC'C or colder so atmospheric warming could be decreasing the <br />frequency of suitable clouds and, therefore, opportunitics for ground-based seeding. <br /> <br />Another possible cause of the apparent decline of seeding effectiveness is related to <br />anthro/x)xenic effects on clouds. A long-teml study:!-l showed precipitation losses over <br />topographic barriers downwind of major coastal urban areas in California amounting to /5rf)-- <br />25% of the annual precipitation. These losses occurred during the 20lh Century in increasingly <br />polluted areas. \.I,'hereas no such trends were observed in similar nearby pristine areas. The <br />authors later investigated2~ an '.orographic enhancement factor" in Israel (ratio of precipitation in <br />inland hilly areas from 500~1000 m in elevation. to that at upwind coasts and plains) from 1950- <br />2002. segregating seeded and non-seeded days. They found that. as in California. increasing air <br />pollution decreased orographic precipitation: the decreases were of such magnitude as to cancel <br />increases from cloud seeding. Physical evidcnce of cloud and aerosol changes induced by air <br />pollution downwind of urban areas has been documented by satellite~6;27 and aircraOZg <br />mcasurcments. See Figure 3 for an example of the satellite analyses in California. <br /> <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.