TPO 36

The reading passage and the lecture are both talking about the effectiveness of cloud seeding in order to reduce the damage of hail. The writer provides three pieces of evidence proving this idea. However, the professor refutes all of the author's claims and says the evidence provided in the reading is unconvincing.
First, the author claims that laboratory experiments support the effectiveness of cloud seeding ideas. The professor, on the other hand, suggests that the effectiveness of this idea may be true in the laboratory conditions, but, the real-life situations are totally different. Cloud seeding ideas in real life may prevent any types of precipitation like rain, snow, and even hail. Due to this circumstance, the area of the experiment may be run the risk of drought.
Second, the author states there is the effective result of the cloud seeding in some urban areas in several Asian countries. The professor, in contrast, points out that air pollution in urban areas provides a favorable condition for cloud seeding. According to this situation, there are interacting chemicals between air pollution and cloud seeding which are appropriate for this method. Hence, there is no evidence that this method works in an unpolluted farming area in the United States.
Third, the author posits that there is evidence that in the local area, cloud seeding reduced the damage of hails on crops in comparison with earlier years. The professor, on the contrary, suggests that the cloud seeding method not just decreased the hails in the farming area, but it affects the precipitation for many neighboring areas. This method may have harmful effects on natural variation in local weather from these areas.