It has come to my attention that there is a rumbling about the possibility of suspending, but not banning Hail Suppression for a short period of time to see if other factors could have eased a drought in Bowman County or a devastating hail storm southwest of Bowman.
I take great issue with that proposition on several points. The first and probably the most important point is that a two or five year stand down of seeding clouds could NOT possibly provide any significant data with any levels of statistical confidence because of the short data collection period. Two or five years of data cannot be compared with 55 years of study that has time and time again proven a hail damage loss reduction of 45 percent. That 45 percent reduction has been very, very steady with no appreciable changes up or down in hail premium rates and hail losses over that 55 year time span. The study that allows Weather Modification advocates to claim that statistically significant 45 percent hail damage reduction was conducted by Doctor Paul W. Mielke, PhD. (Department of Statistics) of Colorado State University for the North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board. Data from a two or five year hiatus could not possibly be normalized in any way for the incredible variations in weather that can occur over short periods of time. Only long term data (55 years) can smooth out the statistical analysis that gives us an excellent way to conclude that cloud seeding does indeed reduce hail losses with great statistical levels of confidence. Conclusion? A short stand down of cloud seeding will not prove anything.
Secondly, if a stand down was desired, a look at funding would have to be considered. Any monies appropriated for the next year’s project would have to be returned to the General Fund to be reallocated to some other undertaking in the county. It would be very difficult to establish a new mill levy to start up a new project if folks realized that they made a mistake and wanted Hail Suppression reinstated. Not only losing the funding, the county would stand the risk of not finding a contractor to take on a project that bounces in and out on a whim. Aircraft, personnel, and radar would be shifted to some other area that would intend to be operational for a longer period of time.
Thirdly, the climate change argument. In order to argue that climate change could cause a one year drought or a devastating hail storm in one summer, you would have to define the term of the climate change. One week? One summer? A decade? A century? A millennium? We don’t know what climate change has done over the last 55 years of cloud seeding. My answer is very little influence if any in a small target area, but two or five years won’t prove anything one way or the other in this regard.
Fourthly, rain increase. In the past, rain increase was oversold. Science can prove a 5-15 percent increase in rainfall, but .015 of an inch isn’t much in a light shower, but in a two inch rain storm you could see an extra .30 of an inch. A big difference. The more important thing to remember is that studies conclude that rain is increased, and definitely not decreased.
Remember to vote NO on the weather mod issue to keep the radar and the program. Scientific fact beats assumption or conjecture every time. Vote NO.
- Bart Fisher, Bowman
