- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,406
Seeds of doubt? Researchers question the science behind cloud seeding
By Greg Lavine
The Salt Lake Tribune
Since the first practical cloud-seeding experiments took place more than 50 years ago in upstate New York, groups around the world -- including some in Utah -- have embraced the goal of squeezing extra moisture from overcast skies.
Utah counties and water-conservation groups have been regularly seeding clouds since 1973 to build snowpacks. The idea is to enhance nature's winter precipitation to avoid water shortages in the summer.
But a report from the National Academies' National Research Council last fall calls into question whether attempts at cloud seeding to increase snowfall, reduce hail or suppress fog are scientifically valid. The report finds no hard, scientific evidence to prove or disprove the value of ongoing cloud-seeding efforts.
"There are still some fundamental questions that need to be answered," said Daniel Breed, a researcher with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who helped edit the report. "There really is a dying need for information in this area because people are doing these projects regardless."
More Information
The report has kicked up a flurry of controversy between some meteorology researchers and cloud-seeding backers. According to the report, 24 countries engaged in weather modification in 2001, including 66 programs in 10 U.S. states.
Cloud seeders argue that if meteorologists cannot even predict the weather with complete accuracy, then weather-modification advocates should not be required to meet science's exacting standards for proof. Weather-modification groups point to mathematical formulas that indicate the benefits of cloud seeding.
Part of the debate centers on what are known as confidence intervals. Scientists prefer research that shows at least a 95 percent confidence interval, meaning that there is only a 5 percent chance that any given action is doing nothing.
Don Griffith, of Salt Lake City's North American Weather Consultants, said that the 95 percent gold standard is unreasonable for activities such as cloud seeding. Griffith's company handles most of Utah's cloud-seeding programs as well as similar projects in Idaho and California.
"Weather forecasting is not always 95 percent right," Griffith said. "Does that mean we shouldn't do weather forecasting? I don't think so."
Breed said that while weather systems are complex to understand, more rigorous evaluation is needed to make better-educated guesses about whether cloud seeding actually brings rain or snow. Part of the report indicates a need for more research into the questions surrounding cloud seeding.
Improved radar and satellite technology could be employed to learn more about the physical processes going on inside the clouds, Breed said. Until then, it remains unclear whether all the predicted sequence of events involved in cloud seeding are in fact taking place.
Utah's cloud-seeding efforts normally take place between Nov. 15 and April 15, Griffith said. This year, programs are under way in Box Elder and Cache counties, the high and low Uinta Mountains and ranges in south-central Utah. There are no active cloud-seeding projects along the Wasatch Front.
Cloud-seeding generators are scattered among residential areas up to 20 miles west of the mountains. When the right cloud system approaches, Griffith's company tells residents to turn on seed generators installed on their property.
A propane flame burns a mix of acetone and silver iodide, the future nucleus of potential snowflakes. The acetone burns off, leaving the silver iodide to float up into the clouds.
These silver iodide seeds gather moisture in the cloud until they become heavy enough to form a snowflake that falls to the ground, adding to the snowpack.
In an average winter, about 25 such storms rumble across Utah. Nearly all of these cloud systems would have yielded snow even without the silver iodide. Griffith said that the seed generators aim to enhance the snowfall, not make precipitation from nothing.
But measuring success can be a problem.
"It's kind of the old question," Griffith said. "If we hadn't seeded the cloud, how much snow would we have gotten?"
Griffith said his company's analysis estimates a 10-18 percent increase in snowfall in any given year.
" It's by no means a drought-buster," Adams said. Still, even a modest increase in precipitation is worthwhile for those living in such a dry state, he said.
Utah officials see these and other statistics as being worth the 0,000 they spend each year on cloud-seeding projects, said Todd Adams of the state Department of Natural Resources' Division of Water Resources.
Adams said the state does not initiate any such programs, but it does offer a pool of money to share costs with counties and water-conservation districts who hire a weather-modification company. North American Weather Consultants is one of two companies licensed in Utah to provide cloud-seeding services.
The report will not affect Utah's future cloud-seeding plans, Adams said.
The Weather Modification Association, an industry advocacy group, is drafting its own report in response to the National Academies paper, said Griffith, whose company is a member. An initial statement from the group criticized the high scientific standards requested, but agreed with the need for more research.
Breed said he hopes funding will become available for research using today's technology, which could clear the air over the lingering cloud-seeding debate.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03022004/tuesday/tuesday.asp