Cloud Seeding Weather Modification

Definitions matter

I want to take a minute to clear up this misunderstanding of cloud seeding versus weather modification. A clip resurfaced after the Texas flood and shows how poorly understood cloud seeding is. Unfortunately, both parties misstate the simple definition of weather modification and cloud seeding. Tip: Cloud seeding is modifying the weather!

Public, government websites provide the clear definitions on weather modification programs. The (publicly available) NOAA weather modification report library states:

Publication History & Scope

In the late 1940's and 1950's many deemed "the deliberate or the inadvertent alteration of atmospheric conditions by human activity", also known as weather modification, as a promising science of the future. Currently, the most common form of weather modification is cloud seeding, which increases rain or snow, usually for the purpose of increasing the local water supply.

Why does this matter?

In order to draft good legislation and provide viewers with accurate information, factual information and terms must be used.

Here is just one example of a public Idaho weather modification program by way of cloud seeding report:

https://library.oarcloud.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/OAR/OWAQ/Weather_Modification_Project/FY25/Q2/2025IDCM-1.pdf (available on the NOAA website).

---

Other interview statements that made viewers wonder how informed the pair are referenced floods.

But, yes, citizens and even IDWR/IPC must have been concerned with the potential for floods because they provide suspension criteria in case of flood risk. Of course, Idaho advertises only a cold season cloud seeding/weather modification program, but it’s important to know that flood is a risk plainly written into the (public) NOAA report. Here is a snippet of that language:

Also, I will add here that HB 266 in 2021 granted liability exemptions for cloud seeding by stating:

Perfectly safe as long as they aren’t liable in the case that it is not safe. Follow the logic.

And the GAO assessment provides us with the following:

Precipitation suppression is used to divert precipitation away from an area where rain is unwanted. For example, a country may induce precipitation before a storm reaches an already flooded area to avoid exacerbating the flooding or so outdoor events can take place without rain.

Can we agree that there is a chance of human error or simply not properly controlling the weather? The hubris is quite stunning!

---

Other inaccurate remarks were made with regard to only using only silver iodide, but failed to mention the binders and propellants in cloud seeding flares. Again, not just silver iodide is used and a typical flare material safety data sheet shows these facts. Additionally, Boise Public Radio announced seeding with liquid propane in Idaho experiments with new way to boost snowfall in warming world.

https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2024-01-30/idaho-power-cloud-seeding-liquid-propane

I think you get the picture. While I’d like to keep going, it probably is not a good use of time. But kudos to all the viewers who watched that interview and questioned these inaccuracies. Citizens have become very well informed on this topic.

Note to the Ranch Podcast and Senator Nichols, let’s get this right. A small amount of due diligence to get the facts together and provide Idahoans with useful information is needed. Most of this information is PUBLIC. Cloud seeding is weather modification. There is a risk of floods.

---

Oh, and Matt, your claimed water increases, was that from IDWR or IPC? Doing the legwork in finding out how they arrive at those numbers would have been helpful. Here are cliff notes of the GAO assessment regarding increases:

…reporting effects as a percent increase would inflate results when expected precipitation before cloud seeding is low, compared to when expected precipitation is higher. As a result, policymakers may have challenges interpreting results when only the percent increase is reported. In addition, some evaluations report percent increase on an annual basis, while others report it for seeded storms. One stakeholder told us reporting percent increase of precipitation due to cloud seeding on an annual basis is challenging because the number of storms seeded must be considered, and applying the percent increase from an individual storm to an entire year is inaccurate.

For example, if a storm was expected to produce 0.1 inches of precipitation, and cloud seeding resulted in this storm producing 0.3 inches of precipitation, then the percent increase is 200 percent. If a storm was expected to produce 1 inch of precipitation, and cloud seeding resulted in this storm producing 1.2 inches of precipitation, then the percent increase is 20 percent. In these examples, the total precipitation gain is the same (0.2 inches), but the percent increase values are different.

Thanks to everyone who research well and help to inform.

The full interview on “Saving Idaho’s Cloud Seeding”