PART 8 - THE WEATHER MODIFICATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Weather modification discussion of November 10, 2005
This is Part 8 of the article: Questions by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye. Questions by Hon. Benjamin Nelson. Questions by Hon. Bill Nelson.
(The article has been cut up in 8 parts due to email technicalities that have to do with gmail.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN
Weather Board
Question 1. What is this Board’s legal and line of authority relationship to the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of NOAA?
Answer. There is no legal and line of authority relationship of the Board to the Secretary of Commerce and NOAA. However, a Subcommittee would be established under OSTP and a board of private advisors will support the Subcommittee’s efforts. NOAA will be a Co-Chair of the Subcommittee with NSF.
Question 2. What is the legal and scientific basis for creating such a powerful entity?
Answer. This entity is being established to study the effectiveness of a weather modification program and would not establish direct authority to conduct operational weather modification.
Question 3. The establishment of this Board appears to place weather modification research above all other types of atmospheric research as a priority for funding within the Federal system. Why?
Answer. No, I do not believe the bill places weather modification research above any other type of atmospheric research within the Federal agencies. Further, one cannot divorce weather modification research from basic atmospheric research. One must not forget that a prerequisite for meaningful weather modification is that one must first understand the phenomenon being modified. Thus, weather modification research always adds to the body of knowledge of basic weather we already have now, resulting in better forecasts and warnings of most weather phenomena. I strongly believe that now is the time to begin a sustained Federal effort in weather modification research, not only to determine optimum conditions and appropriate technologies for winter snowpack and summer rainfall enhancement, but for studies of severe storm modification (including hurricanes and tornadoes) as well. I have no doubt that some of the most urgent weather modification research will directly benefit NWS/NOAA goals as well in short-term weather forecasts and warnings.
Question 4. Would this board have subpoena powers and the power to issue ‘‘rules,’’ as is suggested by the bill?
Answer. No, I don’t anticipate that the Board, in either bill, would have subpoena powers. Nor do I feel that it should issue ‘‘rules,’’ as other groups like the ASCE already issue best-practice documents for weather modification operations. The Board should organize and coordinate a national Federal program in weather modi- fication research and technology development, and recommend needed funding to accomplish these tasks (through the expert Subcommittee).
Question 5. Is the purpose of the Board to essentially create an independent agency dedicated to the promotion of weather modification research and distribution of grants? Please explain.
Answer. No, again, the Board and its Subcommittee of experts should develop a coordinated national program of research through existing Federal agencies, including especially NOAA, NSF, and NASA.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON TO DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN
Legal Issues of Weather Modification
Has anyone considered the legal issues involved in weather modification? There is only a certain amount of moisture in the atmosphere; if artificial measures are used to make it rain in a particular location to relieve drought, for example, that water is diverted from another location where it would have ultimately fallen. This raises similar issues as water rights controversies, where rivers have been diverted to accommodate certain interests at the expense of others.
Question 1. Has the scientific community considered the legal implications of weather modification?
Answer. Yes, the scientific community has carefully considered the legal implications of weather modification for many years. One of my esteemed colleagues in the weather modification community (deceased) was Ray Jay Davis, a lawyer from Salt Lake City. My colleague, Dr. Tom DeFelice will include more details and some of Mr. Davis’ writings on legal issues in his response to your question.
Question 1a. Shouldn’t Congress be concerned that any government supported Weather Modification Board might support research and development of weather modifications without considering the legal implications?
Answer. I believe that the Board will be composed of a broad cross-section of public and private individuals who will act responsibly, with additional oversight by OSTP. Legal implications become most important in weather modification operations, but at this time, no operational seeding will be conducted by the Federal Government in any research supported by the bill. The Congress passed a Public Law in l971 that requires all operational weather modification projects in the U.S. to report details of their projects at least once a year to NOAA.
Question 2. Have you addressed the basic question of who owns the weather?
Answer. There is no sole ownership of the weather, therefore, any large-scale operational weather modification projects have always had to address both legal and environmental issues. For example, the NOAA/Navy joint hurricane modification Project STORMFURY had to produce an extensive study of possible environmental impacts prior to its commencement, and these were all documented in an EIS Report subjected to peer review. Currently, the Weather Modification Association certifies weather modification operators, and includes ethical and legal guidelines in the process.
Funding
I am concerned that there are a number of areas within weather research that are inadequately funded. For example, drought is of particular concern to my state right now. The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) in Nebraska has only been in existence since 1995. Previously, no national initiative or program existed to monitor drought trends. The work at the NDMC in monitoring drought, not only in Nebraska, but nationwide, will help us mitigate and respond to its effects in a much more effective manner. This is only one of numerous programs addressing weather monitoring, mitigation, and response that is years behind where it could be.
Question 1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater priority than research in the weather we already have now?
Answer. No, I do not believe either version of the bill places weather modification research above any other type of atmospheric research within the Federal agencies. One cannot divorce weather modification research from basic atmospheric research. One must not forget that a prerequisite for meaningful weather modification is that one must first understand the phenomenon being modified. Thus, weather modifica- tion research always adds to the body of knowledge of basic weather we already have now, resulting in better forecasts and warnings of most weather phenomenon. I strongly believe that now is the time to begin a sustained Federal effort in weather modification research, not only to determine optimum conditions and appropriate technologies for winter snowpack and summer rainfall enhancement, but for studies of severe storm modification (including hurricanes and tornadoes) as well. I have no doubt that some of the most urgent weather modification research will directly benefit NWS/NOAA goals as well in short-term weather forecasts and warnings.
Question 2. Shouldn’t we ensure that existing research is adequately funded in order to protect commercial and governmental interests before making a commitment to support private research?
Answer. Yes, we should ensure adequate funding for Federal weather research. This bill will not make a commitment to direct private research in weather.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN
Funding
The Hurricane Research Division of NOAA’s Office of Atmospheric Research has been inadequately funded for many years. As a result, research staff vacancies have gone unfilled, years of data have gone unanalyzed, and the science of hurricane pre- diction—especially with regard to intensity—is years behind where it could be.
Question 1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater priority than research in the weather we already have now?
Answer. No, I believe that the two types of research are both needed and are not mutually exclusive. Weather modification research will certainly add to the body of knowledge of the weather we already have now. This research will be supportive and complementary. Many of the most critical research issues for weather modification involve technology and scientific questions that directly impact the short-term weather forecast and warning problems faced by my colleagues in the National Weather Service and the U.S. Military.
Question 2. Shouldn’t we ensure that government hurricane research is adequately funded in order to protect lives before we make a commitment to support private research in weather research that has primarily only commercial applications?
Answer. Yes, we should ensure adequate funding for government research. I am knowledgeable about the need for hurricane research. This bill would not make a commitment to support private research in weather.
I believe that the premise of this question is incorrect, because the bulk of the research and funding to carry it forward would occur in the Federal weather labs and the universities. The weather modification research would have applications extending far beyond ‘‘commercial applications.’’ The outputs of this research would also have immediate payoffs to helping Federal agencies reach their GPRA goals in improved observations, modeling and improved forecast/warning performance for NWS. For example, improved 3–D models for determining transport of seeding materials into cloud systems could also be used for tracking bioterrorism releases in populated areas and for improved forecasts of air quality.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO DR. THOMAS P. DEFELICE
Weather Board
Question 1. What is this board’s legal and line of authority relationship to the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of NOAA?
Answer. Recent bill mark up discussions call for a permanent subcommittee (Weather Modification) within the Office of Science and Technology, who’s chair would report directly to the President’s Science Advisor.
Question 2. What is the legal and scientific basis for creating such a powerful entity?
Answer. There are multiple reasons to take everyday basic and applied science knowledge, combine it with latest technologies and apply them creating not only im- proved science and technology, but also tools that better serve and support the people. There is no funding to accomplish said, and time is running out. This subcommittee is necessary to study and verify the effectiveness and reliability of the science of weather modification.
Question 3. The establishment of this board appears to place weather modification research above all other types of atmospheric research as a priority for funding within the Federal system. Why?
Answer. No, the establishment of this board does not place weather modification research above all other types of research, Research related to weather modification more visibly serves societal needs (such as providing more water for reservoirs, en- ergy generation or more sunshine for mental wellbeing, energy storage, reducing the destructive forces associated with hurricanes, or drought mitigation), and also provides data for the research already underway.
Question 4. Would this board have subpoena powers and the power to issue ‘‘rules,’’ as is suggested by the bill?
Answer. No, the Board will only report to the Subcommittee which will be comprised [sic] of Federal agencies.
Question 5. Is the purpose of the Board to essentially create an independent agency dedicated to the promotion of weather modification research and distribution of grants? Please explain.
Answer. No, the Board will report suggestions and provide answers to technical questions issued by the subcommittee.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON TO DR. THOMAS P. DEFELICE
Question 1. Has anyone considered the legal issues involved in weather modification? There is only a certain amount of moisture in the atmosphere; if artificial measures are used to make it rain in a particular location to relieve drought, for example, that water is diverted from another location where it would have ultimately fallen.
Answer. Yes there is a certain amount of moisture in the atmosphere and most of it naturally stays there in some form or another. Very little atmospheric moisture falls out as precip (rain) on a global average basis. The precipitation efficiency of a thunderstorm is only about 20 percent, meaning 80 percent of the moisture associ- ated with it remains in the atmosphere. I can provide the reference.
Cloud seeding does not divert rain from falling in one place in favor of another (or in other words, cloud seeding does not rob Peter of rain to ‘water’ Paul, it provides a little more rain to Peter and more rain to Paul than he would have received naturally). Clouds have been observed to contain plenty of moisture, even during the early months of a drought-period. Clouds just don’t always possess a natural precipitation initiation mechanism (virga—precipitation that doesn’t reach the ground—is not an example of a viable precipitation process, but may occur). The absence of a viable precipitation process also happens frequently in the areas surrounding deserts (drought regions).
Cloud seeding applied to such clouds, under the right atmospheric conditions, pro- vides the trigger to initiate a viable precipitation process. So cloud seeding extends the area of precipitation beyond what nature is able to provide. This is analogous to receiving a flu shot to make our immune system more viable during flu season. It is mostly not true that getting a flu shot gives us the flu. Not getting the flu shot generally means getting the flu.
This raises similar issues as water rights controversies, where rivers have been diverted to accommodate certain interests at the expense of others.
Question 2. Has the scientific community considered the legal implications of weather modification?
Answer. The legal implications of weather modification are well documented (e.g., Ray Jay Davis, lawyer (deceased); Academic Press book on Weather Modification by Arnett Dennis 1981; American Society Civil Engineers (ASCE), Manual of Profes- sional Practice for precipitation enhancement, 2nd Edition, and the ASCE standard practice documents on hail suppression, precipitation augmentation, and supercooled fog dispersal seeding operations).
The scientists who regularly attend weather modification association meetings are familiar with these implications, and efforts have been underway to reach others. The Weather Modification Association Public Information Committee Chair will be happy to provide such documents to the Senator.
Question 3. Shouldn’t Congress be concerned that any government supported Weather Modification Board might support research and development of weather modifications without considering the legal implications?
Answer. Legal implications mostly apply to operations, and operational seeding will not be conducted by the Federal Government under Senator Hutchison’s bill. The board is comprised of [sic] people who have direct experience with weather modification activities.
Question 4. Have you addressed the basic question of who owns the weather?
Answer. This is currently left to the States. Under this bill any activity to modify the weather would have to address legal and environmental issues before it commenced since all would have a stake in the deliverable.
Funding
I am concerned that there are a number of areas within weather research that are inadequately funded. For example, drought is of particular concern to my state right now. The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) in Nebraska has only been in existence since 1995. Previously, no national initiative or program existed to monitor drought trends. The work at the NDMC in monitoring drought, not only in Nebraska, but nationwide, will help us mitigate and respond to its effects in a much more effective manner. This is only one of numerous programs addressing weather monitoring, mitigation, and response that is years behind where it could be.
Question 1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater priority than research in the weather we already have now?
Answer. No, but funding weather modification research can lead to additional technologies that more visibly serve societal needs, such as providing more water for reservoirs, energy generation or more sunshine for mental wellbeing, energy storage, reducing the destructive forces associated with hurricanes, or drought mitigation.
If science and technology expenditures can be explicitly directed toward resolving a societal issue, it will make it easier to obtain public support, as society will see and appreciate that their taxes are being used to help resolve issues they face.
Question 2. Shouldn’t we ensure that existing research is adequately funded in order to protect commercial and governmental interests before making a commitment to support private research?
Answer. Private research support for weather modification does not exist. Thus research related to weather modification requires some research to understand what is to be modified. So, funding technology development and their application also funds the existing research. The direct benefits of funding weather modification research could be realized in the Departments of Commerce, Interior, and Homeland Security (tracking and removal of bioterrism agents).
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO DR. THOMAS P. DEFELICE
Funding
The Hurricane Research Division of NOAA’s Office of Atmospheric Research has been inadequately funded for many years. As a result, research staff vacancies have gone unfilled, years of data have gone unanalyzed, and the science of hurricane pre- diction—especially with regard to intensity—is years behind where it could be. Question 1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater priority than research in the weather we already have now?
Answer. No, but funding weather modification research can lead to additional technologies that more visibly serve societal needs, such as providing more water for reservoirs, energy generation or more sunshine for mental wellbeing, energy storage, reducing the destructive forces associated with hurricanes, or drought mitigation.
It was envisioned that the NOAA Hurricane Research Division (HRD) could play a significant role in weather modification research, since HRD models represent the best available for simulating realistic hurricanes. The unanalyzed data from previous hurricane research are useful for conducting crude verification of select hurricane model outputs.
Question 2. Shouldn’t we ensure that government hurricane research is adequately funded in order to protect lives before we make a commitment to support private research in weather research that has primarily only commercial applications?
Answer. Yes, government hurricane research must be adequately funded, along with all weather system research. There is no known funding authorization for private research.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO MICHAEL GARSTANG, PH.D.
Priorities and Funding of Atmospheric Research
Questions from Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson:
1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater priority than research in the weather we already have now?
2. Shouldn’t we ensure that existing research is adequately funded in order to protect commercial and governmental interests before making a commitment to support private research?
Questions from Hon. Bill Nelson:
1. Should funding of new research on weather modification be a greater priority than research in the weather we already have now?
2. Shouldn’t we ensure that government hurricane research is adequately funded in order to protect lives before we make a commitment to support private research in weather research that has primarily only commercial applications?
Questions from Hon. Daniel K. Inouye:
1. What is this Board’s legal and line of authority relationship to the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of NOAA?
2. What is the legal and scientific basis for creating such a powerful entity?
3. The establishment of this board appears to place weather modification research above all other types of atmospheric research as a priority for funding within the Federal system. Why?
4. Would this Board have subpoena powers and the power to issue ‘‘rules,’’ as is suggested by the bill?
5. Is the purpose of the Board to essentially create an independent agency dedicated to the promotion of weather modification research and distribution of grants? Please explain.
Answers to questions 3 and 5 (questions 1, 2, and 4 were beyond the Scope of the NRC Report).
The NRC report documents the decline in funding for research in weather modification over the past 3 decades. Federal funding of weather modification research declined by the 1990s to less than $0.5M/year.
The NRC report points out the paradox between
1. funding (largely by States) of unverified weather modification methods to address critical needs for water and reduction of damage (hail) but failure to fund the research needed to understand and improve these methodologies.
2. substantial application of research funds directed at understanding and defining the implications of inadvertent weather modification (global warming) but failure to employ resources that would address advertent weather modification despite the fact that many of the basic scientific principles underly both unintentional and intentional weather modification.
The NRC report emphasizes the fact that over the past 30 years enormous strides have been made in technology enabling processes critical to all weather to be observed, recorded, assimulated and modelled. Explicit attack upon critical physical processes such as the formation of a raindrop or a hail stone is now possible. Such a directed and sustained effort to remove obstacles to progress would pay dividends not only in weather modification but in many areas of the weather.
For example, one of the greatest difficulties facing a weather forecaster is the prediction of the intensity and amount of the expected rain and hence flooding and other damage. Understanding the microphysics leading to rain can be significantly enhanced by carrying out controlled weather modification experiments. This under- standing of precipitation would contribute directly to furthering our ability to predict the intensifying or weakening of a hurricane.
The NRC report recommends a very directed research effort which would address a series of obstacles in understanding critical atmospheric processes. Such an effort would benefit a broad spectrum of applications of weather science.
The NRC report explicitly advises against the application of Federal research resources to rain enhancement or hail reduction experiments until the critical questions blocking progress have been addressed.
Finally, the NRC report points to the need and responsibility to address questions of water needs, severe storm damage ranging from hail and lightning to wind and water damage. The capability now exists to determine whether and to what extent humans are capable of exercising control over the weather. Unless a concerted and sustained effort is mounted by all of those responsible such questions will remain unanswered.
Legal Implications of Weather Modification
Questions from Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson:
1. Has the scientific community considered the legal implications of weather modification?
2. Shouldn’t Congress be concerned that any government supported Weather Modification Board might support research and development of weather modifica- tions without considering the legal implications?
3. Have you addressed the basic question of who owns the weather?
Answer:
The NRC report recognized the importance of weather modification research to society including legal implications. The NRC Committee’s terms of reference were confined to addressing the current and future state of weather modification research.
The NRC report does, however, point out that efforts in rainfall enhancement are directed at the redistribution and efficient use of existing water vapor supplies in the atmosphere. Intervention could produce rain where needed without ‘‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’’. Research and operations which have shed light on this question suggest instead that ‘‘extra area’’ effects extend rather than limit the effects of rainfall enhancement.
Æ