Cancel culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture 

Cancel culture, also called call-out culture, is the alleged cultural phenomenon where people criticize or disassociate from an individual who is thought to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner. It usually includes calls over social media for the target to be ostracized, boycotted, shunned or fired. This shunning may extend to social or professional circles— whether on social media or in person— with most high-profile incidents involving those with influence in media or politics. More generally, cancel culture includes changes in who one honors, such as the removal of monuments from a public square, removing books from school curricula, changing place names, etc. Such subjects are said to have been "canceled". While the careers of some public figures have been impacted by boycotts— widely described as "cancellation"⁠— others who have complained of cancellation successfully continued their careers.

The term "cancel culture" came into circulation in 2018 and has mostly negative connotations. Some critics argue that cancel culture has a chilling effect on public discourse, that it is unproductive, that it does not bring real social change, that it causes intolerance, that it amounts to cyberbullying, or that it contributes to political polarization. Others argue that the term is used to attack efforts to promote accountability or give disenfranchised people a voice, and to attack language and behavior that is itself free speech and freedom of association. Still others question whether cancel culture is an actual phenomenon, arguing that boycotting existed long before the origin of the term "cancel culture".

Origins

Cambridge University professor Nathan Cofnas has argued that cancel culture is an old phenomenon. Cofnas cites excommunication in traditional religions, political afairs, and social consequences against academics as historical examples of cancel culture. British journalist Gavin Mortimer has compared modern cancel culture to the anti-semitic persecution against Jews in pre-war Nazi-Germany. Early examples of cancel culture include the conservative campaigns against Hustler magazine and the television show Teletubbies and the backlash received by the Dixie Chicks for their opposition to the Iraq War.

The 1981 Chic album Take It Off includes the song "Your Love Is Cancelled", which compares a breakup to the cancellation of TV shows. The song was written by Nile Rodgers following a bad date Rodgers had with a woman who expected him to misuse his celebrity status on her behalf. "Your Love Is Cancelled" inspired screenwriter Barry Michael Cooper to include a reference to a woman being canceled in the 1991 film New Jack City. This usage introduced the term to African-American Vernacular English, where it became more common.

By 2015, the concept of canceling had become widespread on Black Twitter to refer to a personal decision, sometimes seriously and sometimes in jest, to stop supporting a person or work. According to Jonah Engel Bromwich of The New York Times, this usage of the word "cancellation" indicates "total disinvestment in something (anything)". After numerous cases of online shaming gained wide notoriety, the use of the term "cancellation" increased to describe a widespread, outraged, online response to a single provocative statement, against a single target. Over time, as isolated instances of cancellation became more frequent and the mob mentality more apparent, commentators began seeing a "culture" of outrage and cancellation.

In October 2017, sexual assault allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein led to the cancellation of his projects, his expulsion from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and legal consequences, including a conviction on charges of rape and sexual assault. These events contributed to the rise of the #MeToo movement, where individuals shared their own allegations of sexual assault, leading to the cancellation of the careers of those accused. In November 2017, comedian Louis C.K. admitted to sexual misconduct allegations and, as a result, his shows were canceled, distribution deals were terminated, and he was dropped by his agency and management. After a period away from show business, Louis C.K. returned to work in 2018 and won a Grammy award in 2022. However, many people in the entertainment industry said that it was inappropriate to support his career or award him a Grammy due to his past misconduct.

Google searches for the phrase "cancel culture" accelerated in 2020, while searches including broader equivalent terms accelerated in 2021.

Conversations about "cancel culture" increased in late 2019. In the 2020s, the phrase became a shorthand nom de guerre employed by spectators to refer to what they perceived to be disproportionate reactions to politically incorrect speech. In 2020, Ligaya Mishan wrote in The New York Times: "The term is shambolically applied to incidents both online and off that range from vigilante justice to hostile debate to stalking, intimidation and harassment. [...] Those who embrace the idea (if not the precise language) of canceling seek more than pat apologies and retractions, although it's not always clear whether the goal is to right a specific wrong or redress a larger imbalance of power." "Call-out culture" has been in use as part of the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement encouraged women and men to call out their abusers on a forum where the accusations would be heard, especially against very powerful individuals.

Academic and legal perspectives

Definition

In 2021, law professor Sasha Volokh wrote on The Volokh Conspiracy "'Cancel culture' is a broad term that embraces lots of different acts and lots of different consequences -- boycotts, firing, piling on to someone on social media, refusal to be friends, rescinding a college acceptance or speech invitation, pulling down a [statue], taking a book off the curriculum, etc." Volokh argued that cancel culture mostly consists of legitimate exercises of personal freedom, especially freedom of association. Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia wrote in a 2021 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy article that cancel culture is a form of free speech, and is therefore protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Media studies scholar Eve Ng defines cancel culture as "the withdrawal of any kind of support (viewership, social media follows, purchases of products endorsed by the person, etc.) for those who are assessed to have said or done something unacceptable or highly problematic, generally from a social justice perspective especially alert to sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, racism, bullying, and related issues."

Ng also described cancel culture as "a collective of typically marginalized voices 'calling out' and emphatically expressing their censure of a powerful figure". According to Lisa Nakamura, University of Michigan professor of media studies, canceling someone is a form of "cultural boycott" and cancel culture is the "ultimate expression of agency", which is "born of a desire for control [as] people have limited power over what is presented to them on social media" and a need for "accountability which is not centralized".

Punishment

There are different perspectives on the morality of cancellations. On one hand, there is the view that cancel culture imposes punishments that are not proportional to the offenses or alleged offenses. This is closely related to John Stuart Mill's criticism of public shaming. In On Liberty, Mill argued that society "practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." Martha Nussbaum similarly says that cancel culture represents the "justice of the mob", but this alleged justice is not "deliberative, impartial or neutral."

On the other hand, there are those who defend the value of shaming as constructive, if done right. People who defend this view maintain that cancel culture often shames people counter-productively but that it can be tweaked or altered in order to be a valuable tool for people's improvement. For instance, holding people accountable for things that they have done wrong can be a powerful way of correcting bad behavior, but it has to be paired with a belief in the possibility of redemption. People who take this approach often agree with Plato that shame is an important feeling that can lead to moral improvements. Everyone in this debate agrees that it is important to avoid what Nussbaum calls a "spoiled identity": to have a spoiled identity is to have the public image of someone who is irredeemable and unwelcome in a community.

In 2023, American conservatives and anti-trans activists engaged in a boycott of Bud Light over its hiring of transgender TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney. The incident is seen an example of cancel culture and consumer backlash. The Harvard Business Review cited the incident as an example of an attempt to "resonate with younger, more socially-conscious audiences", but that it "generated downstream adjustments from retailers and distributors" that negatively hurt the product's performance. It highlighted the incident as making consumer brand marketing departments fearful of taking a stand on social issues.

Academic criticisms

Harvard University professor Pippa Norris has stated that the controversies surrounding cancel culture are between those who argue it gives a voice to those in marginalized communities and those who argue that cancel culture is dangerous because it prevents free speech and/or the opportunity for open debate. Norris emphasizes the role of social media in contributing to the rise of cancel culture. Additionally, online communications studies have demonstrated the intensification of cultural wars through activists that are connected through digital and social networking sites. Norris also mentions that the spiral of silence theory may contribute to why people are hesitant to voice their minority views on social media sites and fear that their views and opinions, specifically political opinions, will be chastised because their views violate the majority group's norms and understanding.

In the book The Coddling of the American Mind (2018), social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argue that call-out culture arises on college campuses from what they term "safetyism"—a moral culture in which people are unwilling to make tradeoffs demanded by the practical or moral concerns of others. Cultural studies scholar Frances E. Lee states that call-out culture leads to self-policing of "wrong, oppressive, or inappropriate" opinions. Keith Hampton, professor of media studies at Michigan State University, contends that the practice contributes to political polarization in the United States but does not lead to changes in opinion. According to Eugene Scalia, cancel culture can interfere with the right to counsel, since some lawyers would not be willing to risk their personal and professional reputation on controversial topics.

Alternatives

Some academics have proposed alternatives and improvements to cancel culture. Clinical counsellor Anna Richards, who specializes in conflict mediation, has stated that "learning to analyze our own motivations when offering criticism" helps call-out culture work productively. Professor Joshua Knobe, of the Philosophy Department at Yale, contends that public denunciation is not effective, and that society is too quick to pass judgement against those they view as public offenders or personae non gratae. Knobe says that these actions have the opposite effect on individuals, and that it is best to bring attention to the positive actions in which most of society participates.

Reactions

The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is used in debates on free speech and censorship.

Criticism

In a speech at the Obama Foundation's annual summit in 2019, former U.S. President Barack Obama criticized the role of "call-out culture" and "wokeness" among young activists on social media.^[61][62] U.S. President Donald Trump criticized "cancel culture" in a speech in July 2020, comparing it to totalitarianism and saying that it is a political weapon used to punish and shame dissenters by driving them from their jobs and demanding submission. He was subsequently criticized as being hypocritical for having attempted to cancel a number of people and companies in the past himself.^[63] Trump made similar claims during the 2020 Republican National Convention when he stated that the goal of cancel culture is to make decent Americans live in fear of being fired, expelled, shamed, humiliated, and driven from society.

Pope Francis said that cancel culture is "a form of ideological colonization, one that leaves no room for freedom of expression", saying that it "ends up cancelling all sense of identity". Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, states that social activism does not just involve going online or going to a protest to call someone out, but is work entailing strategy sessions, meetings, and getting petitions signed. British prime minister Rishi Sunak included cancel culture, where one group "are trying to impose their views on the rest of us", among the contemporary dangers of the modern world.

Philosopher Slavoj Žižek states that "cancel culture, with its implicit paranoia, is a desperate and obviously self-defeating attempt to compensate for the very real violence and intolerance that sexual minorities have long suffered. But it is a retreat into a cultural fortress, a pseudo-'safe space' whose discursive fanaticism merely strengthens the majority's resistance to it." Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, describes cancel culture as "a cultural boycott" and says it provides a culture of accountability. Meredith Clark, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia, states that cancel culture gives power to disenfranchised voices. Osita Nwanevu, a staff writer for The New Republic, states that people are threatened by cancel culture because it is a new group of young progressives, minorities, and women who have "obtained a seat at the table" and are debating matters of justice and etiquette.

Open letter

Main article: A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Dalvin Brown, writing in USA Today, has described an open letter signed by 153 public figures and published in Harper's Magazine as marking a "high point" in the debate on the topic. The letter set out arguments against "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty". A response letter, "A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate", was signed by over 160 people in academia and media. It criticized the Harper's letter as a plea to end cancel culture by successful professionals with large platforms who wanted to exclude others who have been "canceled for generations". The writers ultimately stated that the Harper's letter was intended to further silence already marginalized people. They wrote: "It reads as a caustic reaction to a diversifying industry—one that's starting to challenge diversifying norms that have protected bigotry."

American public opinion

A survey conducted in September 2020 on 10,000 Americans by Pew Research Center asked a series of different questions in regard to cancel culture, specifically on who has heard of the term cancel culture and how Americans define cancel culture. At that time, 44% of Americans said that they have at least heard a fair amount about the new phrase, while 22% have heard a great deal and 32% said they have heard nothing at all. 43% Americans aged 18–29 have heard a great deal about cancel culture, compared to only 12% of Americans over the age of 65 who say they have heard a great deal. Additionally, within that same study, the 44% of Americans who had heard a great deal about cancel culture, were then asked how they defined cancel culture. 49% of those Americans state that it describes actions people take to hold others accountable, 14% describe cancel culture as censorship of speech or history, and 12% define it as mean-spirited actions taken to cause others harm. It was found that men were more likely to have heard or know of cancel culture, and that those who identify with the Democratic Party (46%) are no more likely to know the term than those in the Republican Party (44%).

A poll of American registered voters conducted by Morning Consult in July 2020 showed that cancel culture, defined as "the practice of withdrawing support for (or canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive", was common: 40% of respondents said they had withdrawn support from public figures and companies, including on social media, because they had done or said something considered objectionable or offensive, with 8% having engaged in this often. Behavior differed according to age, with a majority (55%) of voters 18 to 34 years old saying they have taken part in cancel culture, while only about a third (32%) of voters over 65 said they had joined a social media pile-on. Attitude towards the practice was mixed, with 44% of respondents saying they disapproved of cancel culture, 32% who approved, and 24% who did not know or had no opinion. Furthermore, 46% believed cancel culture had gone too far, with only 10% thinking it had not gone far enough. Additionally, 53% believed that people should expect social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions in public, such as those that may be construed as deeply offensive to other people.

A March 2021 poll by Harvard University's Center for American Political Studies and the Harris Poll found that 64% of respondents viewed "a growing cancel culture" as a threat to their freedom, while the other 36% did not. 36% of respondents said that cancel culture is a big problem, 32% called it a moderate problem, 20% called it a small problem, and 13% said it is not a problem. 54% said they were concerned that if they expressed their opinions online, they would be banned or fired, while the other 46% said they were not concerned. A November 2021 Hill/HarrisX poll found that 71% of registered voters strongly or somewhat felt that cancel culture went too far, with similar numbers of Republicans (76%), Democrats (70%), and independents (68%) saying so. The same poll found that 69% of registered voters felt that cancel culture unfairly punishes people for their past actions or statements, compared to 31% who said it did not. Republicans were more likely to agree with the statement (79%), compared to Democrats (65%) and independents (64%).

In a January 2022 Knight-Ipsos study involving 4,000 participants, most Americans surveyed said that some speech should be prohibited. Specifically, they stated that "a variety of private and public institutions should prohibit racist speech". However, most also noted that these same institutions should not ban political views that are offensive. A March 2022 New York Times/Siena College survey of 1,000 Americans found that 84 percent of adults said it is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism. The survey also found that 46 percent of respondents said they felt less free to talk about politics compared to a decade ago, and that only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely.

Criticism of "cancel culture" as a concept

A number of professors, politicians, journalists, as well as other citizens and activists have questioned the validity of cancel culture as an actual phenomenon. Connor Garel, writing for Vice, states that cancel culture "rarely has any tangible or meaningful effect on the lives and comfortability of the cancelled". Danielle Kurtzleben, a political reporter for NPR, wrote in 2021 that overuse of the phrase "cancel culture" in American politics, particularly by Republicans, has made it "arguably background noise". Per Kurtzleben and others, the term has undergone semantic bleaching to lose its original meaning.

Historian C. J. Coventry argues that the term is incorrectly applied, and that the label has been used to avoid accountability for historical instances of injustice. Another historian, David Olusoga, made a similar argument, and argued that the phenomenon of cancellation is not limited to the left. Indigenous governance professor and activist Pamela Palmater writes in Maclean's magazine that "cancel culture is the dog whistle term used by those in power who don't want to be held accountable for their words and actions—often related to racism, misogyny, homophobia or the abuse and exploitation of others."

Sarah Manavis wrote for the New Statesman magazine, "For the better part of the last decade, we have given a label to something that has existed for the length of human history. Some might call it criticism, others might call it backlash." Additionally, she observed that many opponents of so-called cancel culture had drawn upon the arguments of Jon Ronson's book, So You've Been Publicly Shamed. However, noting that Ronson himself remarked that the term cancel culture is "not useful at all" since it "encompass[es] wildly different people and situations", Manavis wrote that "Ronson himself believes that the 'public shaming of civilians' which Ronson wrote of in his book 'doesn't apply' to the social phenomena labelled as cancel culture." To Manavis, the public shaming of "non-famous people" is not essentially about lack of "free speech", but about "how little power normal people have". To Manavis, "[s]ocial media can be intimidating when you have thousands of people disagreeing with you," but the "right to free speech is not the right to have your unfiltered thoughts published without critique. It’s likely [that,] if you feel this way, you hold more power than most of the world."

Consequence culture

Some media commentators including LeVar Burton and Sunny Hostin have stated that "cancel culture" should be renamed "consequence culture". The terms have different connotations: "cancel culture" focusing on the effect whereby discussion is limited by a desire to maintain one certain viewpoint, whereas "consequence culture" focuses on the idea that those who write or publish opinions or make statements should bear some responsibility for the effects of these on people.

Usage by the political right

See also: Disciplinary actions for commentary on the assassination of Charlie Kirk

Activists on the right have also attempted to and sometimes succeeded in canceling various people.

Historian Nicole Hemmer finds historical "cancel culture" on the right before the term was coined, in various movements. McCarthyism and the Lavender Scare of the 1940s and 1950s aimed to get people suspected of communist sympathies or homosexuality fired from their government or private-sector jobs, including the entertainment industry through the Hollywood blacklist. The Save Our Children campaign in the late 1970s was a movement to legalize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation legal, and ban gay and lesbian people from school employment. Conservatives angry at various comments were able to secure the cancellation of Bill Mahr's show Politically Incorrect, and the resignation of Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod from the Obama Administration. Attempts to ban LGBTQ-related books (e.g. Heather Has Two Mommies, And Tango Makes Three) in the 1990s and 2000s have continued in the 2020s with groups like Moms for Liberty.

The right has also been criticized for supporting cancel culture in regards to Israel and Palestine. For example, during the Gaza war, Republicans held Congress hearings in which they accused university leaders of not doing enough to silence what they perceived as antisemitic speech on campus. In another example, New York University withheld the diploma of graduating senior Logan Rozos, in retaliation for his criticism of US support for the genocide in Gaza during a graduation speech. Some activists who present themselves as defenders of free speech engage in cancel culture directed at pro-Palestine activists, also known as the Palestine exception to free speech. Other critics of cancel culture have also supported book bans in school and public libraries or censorship of school curriculums.

In the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some conservatives who had previously criticized cancel culture pushed for the firing of people who criticized Kirk after his death. Vice President JD Vance called on Americans to report those allegedly celebrating Kirk's killing to their employers and promised to use the federal government to investigate and punish liberal organizations and donors. Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression described the shift as a form of right-wing cancel culture, noting that people were being targeted for simply quoting Kirk or failing to mourn his passing adequately, comparing government involvement to McCarthyism. The New York Times described the campaign as morphing into "a conservative version of the cancel culture that only a few years ago was wielded by the American left", and evidence of the rise of a "woke right". Some conservative voices also objected to the Trump administration's efforts to police speech surrounding Kirk's death, with The Wall Street Journal running an editorial saying: "The squeeze on Disney looks to be a case of cancel culture on the right."

In popular media

• The 1992 play and 1994 film Oleanna by David Mamet. The plot concerns a power struggle between a college professor and a younger female student, who is backed by an offscreen campus feminist group. The situation escalates to an accusation of sexual harassment and the professor facing the loss of his job. The play and film predate the terms "call out" or "cancel culture" by several decades, but are situated in terms of then-current concerns about political correctness.
• The American animated television series South Park mocked cancel culture with its own "#CancelSouthPark" campaign; in promotion of the show's twenty-second season (2018). In the season's third episode, "The Problem with a Poo", there are references to the 2017 documentary The Problem with Apu, the cancellation of Roseanne after a controversial tweet by Roseanne Barr, and the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination.
• In 2019, cancel culture was a primary theme in the stand-up comedy show Sticks & Stones by Dave Chappelle.
• The 2022 film Texas Chainsaw Massacre satirizes cancel culture, with Leatherface killing an individual who threatens to cancel him.
• The 2022 film Tár was interpreted by several critics as exploring themes regarding cancel culture.
• The 2023 film Dream Scenario criticizes cancel culture. The film's creator, Kristoffer Borgli, stated that he conceived the screenplay after reading about university educators who were fired for expressing personal opinions.
• The 2025 film After the Hunt takes on the theme of cancel culture in an academic setting. The plot presents characters on both sides of the cancellation scenario as engaging in a power struggle within the academic hierarchy and includes a counter-narrative suggesting that one of the cancelled individuals is in fact guilty of the behavior he is accused of.

Cloud seeding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding 

Cloud seeding can be done by ground generators or planes

Cloud seeding is a type of weather modification that aims to change the amount or type of precipitation, mitigate hail, or disperse fog. The usual objective is to increase rain or snow, either for its own sake or to prevent precipitation from occurring in days afterward.

Cloud seeding is undertaken by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei. Common agents include silver iodide, potassium iodide, and dry ice, with hygroscopic materials like table salt gaining popularity due to their ability to attract moisture. Techniques vary from static seeding, which encourages ice particle formation in supercooled clouds to increase precipitation, to dynamic seeding, designed to enhance convective cloud development through the release of latent heat.

Methods of dispersion include aircraft and ground-based generators or balloons, with newer approaches involving drones delivering electric charges to stimulate rainfall, or infrared laser pulses aimed at inducing particle formation. Despite decades of research and application, cloud seeding's effectiveness remains a subject of debate among scientists, with studies offering mixed results on its impact on precipitation enhancement.

Environmental and health impacts are considered minimal due to the low concentrations of substances used, but concerns persist over the potential accumulation of seeding agents in sensitive ecosystems. The practice has a long history, with initial experiments dating back to the 1940s, and has been used for various purposes, including agricultural benefits, water supply augmentation, and event planning. Legal frameworks primarily focus on prohibiting the military or hostile use of weather modification techniques, leaving the ownership and regulation of cloud-seeding activities to national discretion. Despite skepticism and debate over its efficacy and environmental impact, cloud seeding continues to be explored and applied in regions worldwide as a tool for weather modification.

Methods

Salts

Ground-based silver iodide generator – Colorado, US

The most common chemicals used for cloud seeding include silver iodide, potassium iodide and dry ice (solid carbon dioxide). Liquid propane, which expands into a gas, has also been used. It can produce ice crystals at higher temperatures than silver iodide. After promising research, the use of hygroscopic materials, such as table salt, is becoming more popular.

When cloud seeding, increased snowfall takes place when temperatures within the clouds are between −20 and −7 °C (-4 °F and 20 °F). Freezing nucleation is induced by the introduction of substances similar to silver iodide, which has a crystalline structure like ice.

Electric charges

Since 2021, the United Arab Emirates have been using drones equipped with a payload of electric-charge emission instruments and customized sensors that fly at low altitudes and deliver an electric charge to air molecules. This method may have contributed to a significant rainstorm in July 2021. For instance, in Al Ain it rained 6.9 millimetres (¼ inch) on 20–21 July.

Infrared laser pulses

Further information: Laser-assisted water condensation

An electronic mechanism was tested in 2010, when infrared laser pulses were directed to the air above Berlin by researchers from the University of Geneva. The experimenters posited that the pulses would encourage atmospheric sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide to form particles that would then act as seeds.

Effectiveness

Despite decades of research and application, cloud seeding's effectiveness remains a subject of debate among scientists, with studies offering mixed results on its impact on precipitation enhancement, according to a report issued by the US Government Accountability Office in December 2024. Whether cloud seeding is effective in producing a statistically significant increase in precipitation has been a matter of academic debate, with contrasting results depending on the study in question and contrasting opinion among experts.

A study conducted by the United States National Academy of Sciences failed to find statistically significant support for cloud seeding's effectiveness. Based on its findings, Stanford University ecologist Jerry Bradley said: "I think you can squeeze out a little more snow or rain in some places under some conditions, but that's quite different from a program claiming to reliably increase precipitation." Data similar to that of the NAS study was acquired in a separate study conducted by the Wyoming Weather Modification Pilot Project, but whereas the NAS study concluded that "it is difficult to show clearly that cloud seeding has a very large effect", the WWMPP study concluded that "seeding could augment the snowpack by a maximum of 3% over an entire season."

In 2003, the US National Research Council (NRC) released a report stating, "science is unable to say with assurance which, if any, seeding techniques produce positive effects. In the 55 years following the first cloud-seeding demonstrations, substantial progress has been made in understanding the natural processes that account for our daily weather. Yet scientifically acceptable proof for significant seeding effects has not been achieved".

A 2010 Tel Aviv University study claimed that the common practice of cloud seeding to improve rainfall, with materials such as silver iodide and frozen carbon dioxide, seems to have little if any impact on the amount of precipitation. A 2011 study suggested that airplanes may produce ice particles by freezing cloud droplets that cool as they flow around the tips of propellers, over wings or over jet aircraft, and thereby unintentionally seed clouds. This could have potentially serious consequences for particular hail stone formation.

In 2016, Jeff Tilley, director of weather modification at the Desert Research Institute in Reno, claimed that new technology and research has produced reliable results that make cloud seeding a dependable and affordable water supply practice for many regions. Moreover, in 1998 the American Meteorological Society held that "precipitation from supercooled orographic clouds (clouds that develop over mountains) has been seasonally increased by about 10%."

Despite the mixed scientific results, cloud seeding was attempted during the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing to coax rain showers out of clouds before they reached the city in order to prevent rain during the opening and closing ceremonies. Whether this attempt was successful is a matter of dispute, with Roelof Bruintjes, who leads the National Center for Atmospheric Research's weather-modification group, remarking, "we cannot make clouds or chase clouds away".

Impact on environment and health

With an NFPA 704 health hazard rating of 2, silver iodide can cause temporary incapacitation or possible residual injury to humans and other mammals with intense or chronic exposure. But several detailed ecological studies have shown negligible environmental and health impacts. The toxicity of silver and silver compounds (from silver iodide) was shown to be of low order in some studies. These findings likely result from the minute amounts of silver generated by cloud seeding, which are about one percent of industry emissions into the atmosphere in many parts of the world, or individual exposure from tooth fillings.

Accumulations in the soil, vegetation, and surface runoff have not been large enough to measure above natural background. A 1995 environmental assessment in the Sierra Nevada of California and a 2004 independent panel of experts in Australia confirmed these earlier findings.

"In 1978, an estimated 3,000 tonnes of silver were released into the US environment. This led the US Health Services and EPA to conduct studies regarding the potential for environmental and human health hazards related to silver. These agencies and other state agencies applied the Clean Water Act of 1977 and 1987 to establish regulations on this type of pollution."

Cloud seeding over Kosciuszko National Park – a biosphere reserve – is problematic in that several rapid changes of environmental legislation were made to enable the trial. Environmentalists are concerned about the uptake of elemental silver in a highly sensitive environment affecting the pygmy possum, among other species, as well as recent high-level algal blooms in once pristine glacial lakes. Research 50 years ago and analysis by the former Snowy Mountains Authority led to the cessation of the cloud seeding program in the 1950s with non-definitive results. Formerly, cloud seeding was rejected in Australia on environmental grounds because of concerns about the pygmy possum. The claims of negative environmental impact are disputed by peer-reviewed research, as summarized by the International Weather Modification Association.

History

The Pittsfield Flight; the world's first successful weather modification experiment

Beech 18 used dry ice for cloud seeding in the early postwar era US

Lockheed 18 cloud seeding from Wagga Airport in 1958 Australia

T-28A Trojan rain maker 1960 US

Curtiss P-40 rain maker 1964 US, now at Yanks Air Museum

Curtiss P-40N N1232N Weather Modification Company - cloud seeding

Harvard hail defence 1964 Canada

In 1891, Louis Gathmann suggested shooting liquid carbon dioxide into rain clouds to cause them to rain. During the 1930s, the Bergeron–Findeisen process theorized that supercooled water droplets present, while ice crystals are released into rain clouds, would cause rain. While researching aircraft icing, General Electric (GE)'s Vincent Schaefer and Irving Langmuir confirmed the theory. Schaefer discovered the principle of cloud seeding in July 1946 through a series of serendipitous events. Following ideas he and Langmuir generated while climbing Mt. Washington in New Hampshire, Schaefer, Langmuir's research associate, created a way of experimenting with supercooled clouds using a deep freeze unit of potential agents to stimulate ice crystal growth, i.e., table salt, talcum powder, soils, dust, and various chemical agents with minor effect. Then, on July 14, 1946, he wanted to try a few experiments at GE's Schenectady Research Lab.

He was dismayed to find that the deep freezer was not cold enough to produce a "cloud" using breath air. He decided to move the process along by adding a chunk of dry ice just to lower the temperature of his experimental chamber. To his astonishment, as soon as he breathed into the deep freezer, he noted a bluish haze, followed by an eye-popping display of millions of microscopic ice crystals, reflecting the strong light rays from the lamp illuminating a cross-section of the chamber. He instantly realized that he had discovered a way to change super-cooled water into ice crystals. The experiment was easily replicated, and he explored the temperature gradient to establish the −40 °C (−40 °F) limit for liquid water.

Within the month, Schaefer's colleague, the atmospheric scientist Bernard Vonnegut, was credited with discovering another method for "seeding" super-cooled cloud water. Vonnegut accomplished his discovery at the desk, looking up information in a basic chemistry text and then tinkering with silver and iodide chemicals to produce silver iodide. Together with Professor Henry Chessin, of SUNY Albany, a crystallographer, he co-authored a publication in Science and received a patent in 1975. Both methods were adopted for use in cloud seeding during 1946 while working for GE in the state of New York.

Schaefer's method altered a cloud's heat budget; Vonnegut's altered formative crystal structure, an ingenious property related to a good match in lattice constant between the two types of crystal. (The crystallography of ice later played a role in Vonnegut's brother Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle). The first attempt to modify natural clouds in the field through "cloud seeding" began during a flight that began in upstate New York on 13 November 1946. Schaefer was able to cause snow to fall near Mount Greylock in western Massachusetts after he dumped six pounds (2.5 kg) of dry ice into the target cloud from a plane after a 60-mile (100 km) easterly chase from the Schenectady County Airport.

Dry ice and silver iodide agents are effective in changing super-cooled clouds' physical chemistry, and thus useful in augmenting winter snowfall over mountains and, under certain conditions, in lightning and hail suppression. While not a new technique, hygroscopic seeding for enhancement of rainfall in warm clouds is enjoying a revival, based on positive indications from research in South Africa, Mexico, and elsewhere.  The hygroscopic material most commonly used is table salt. It is postulated that hygroscopic seeding causes the droplet size spectrum in clouds to become more maritime (bigger drops) and less continental, stimulating rainfall through coalescence. From 1967 to 1972, the U.S. military's Operation Popeye cloud-seeded silver iodide to extend the monsoon season over North Vietnam, specifically the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The operation extended the monsoon period an average of 30 to 45 days in the targeted areas. The 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron carried out the operation to "make mud, not war".

An attempt by the U.S. military to modify hurricanes in the Atlantic basin using cloud seeding in the 1960s was called Project STORMFURY. Scientists tested four hurricanes across eight days and observed decreased wind speeds of 10% to 30% on four of these days. They originally attributed the lack of results to faulty execution, but the results came into question because of the lack of supercooled water in the hurricane and the inability to determine if the effects were due to human intervention or the natural processes of hurricanes.

Two federal agencies have supported various weather modification research projects, which began in the early 1960s: The United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation; Department of the Interior) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; Department of Commerce). Reclamation sponsored several cloud-seeding research projects under the umbrella of Project Skywater from 1964 to 1988, and NOAA conducted the Atmospheric Modification Program from 1979 to 1993. The sponsored projects were carried out in several states and two countries (Thailand and Morocco), studying both winter and summer cloud seeding. From 1962 to 1988 Reclamation developed cloud seeding applied research to augment water supplies in the western U.S. The research focused on winter orographic seeding to enhance snowfall in the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada, and precipitation in coast ranges of southern California. In California Reclamation partnered with the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) to sponsor the Serra Cooperative Pilot Project (SCPP), based in Auburn, to conduct seeding experiments in the central Sierra. The University of Nevada and Desert Research Institute provided cloud physics, physical chemistry, and other field support. The High Plains Cooperative Pilot Project (HIPLEX) focused on convective cloud seeding to increase rainfall during the growing season in Montana, Kansas, and Texas from 1974 to 1979.

In 1979, the World Meteorological Organization and other member-states led by the Government of Spain conducted a Precipitation Enhancement Project (PEP) in Spain, with inconclusive results due probably to location selection issues.

Reclamation sponsored research at several universities, including Colorado State University, the Universities of Wyoming, Washington, UCLA, Utah, Chicago, NYU, Montana, and Colorado, and research teams at Stanford, Meteorology Research Inc., and Penn State University, and the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, North Dakota, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma. Cooperative efforts with state water resources agencies in California, Colorado, Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Arizona assured that the applied research met state water management needs. HIPLEX also partnered with NASA, Environment Canada, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). From 2002 to 2006, in cooperation with six western states, Reclamation sponsored a small cooperative research program called the Weather Damage Modification Program.

In the U.S., funding for research has declined in the last two decades. But the Bureau of Reclamation sponsored a six-state research program from 2002 to 2006 called the "Weather Damage Modification Program". A 2003 study by the United States National Academy of Sciences urges a national research program to clear up remaining questions about weather modification's efficacy and practice.

Cloud seeding at Corryong, Victoria Cessna 320 1966

In Australia, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) conducted major trials between 1947 and the early-1960s:

• 1947–1952: CSIRO scientists dropped dry ice into the tops of cumulus clouds. The method worked reliably with clouds that were very cold, producing rain that would not have otherwise fallen.
• 1953–1956: CSIRO carried out similar trials in South Australia, Queensland and other states. Experiments used both ground-based and airborne silver iodide generators.
• Late 1950s and early 1960s: Cloud seeding in the Snowy Mountains, on the Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, in the New England District of New South Wales, and in the Warragamba catchment area west of Sydney.

Only the trial conducted in the Snowy Mountains produced statistically significant rainfall increases over the entire experiment.

Hydro Tasmania (at the time still known as the Hydro Electric Commission) began experimenting with cloud-seeding over lake catchments in central Tasmania in the early 1960s in order to determine if their electricity-producing dams could be kept at high water levels through cloud seeding. Tasmania proved to be one place where cloud seeding was highly effective. Various trials were undertaken between 1964 and 2005, and again between 2009 and 2016, but none have taken place since then. Hydro Tasmania also undertook soil and water survey samples and found negligible trace elements of the materials used for cloud seeding (such as silver iodine), and determined it did not have a detrimental effect on the environment.

An Austrian study to use silver iodide seeding for hail prevention ran during 1981–2000, and the technique is still actively deployed there.

Aircraft types

Cloud seeding aircraft are specially modified airplanes designed to disperse seeding agents, such as silver iodide flares, hygroscopic salts, or dry ice, into suitable clouds to enhance precipitation or suppress hail. These aircraft are typically equipped with wing-mounted flare racks, underwing or fuselage dispensers, meteorological sensors, GPS navigation systems, and dedicated mission control equipment to ensure accurate and safe operations. Any aircraft used for cloud seeding must be approved and modified in accordance with the applicable aviation regulations FAA, EASA etc., with the installation of seeding systems documented through the appropriate certification and airworthiness procedures. Suitable cloud seeding aircraft should provide good low-speed handling, stable flight characteristics in turbulent weather, adequate payload capacity, sufficient endurance, and the ability to operate safely at the altitudes where cloud seeding missions are conducted.

Important aircraft characteristics

• stable flight characteristics in turbulent atmosphere
• safe operation at all operating cloud seeding altitudes
• sutable low-speed operation handling
• well-equipped IFR setup
• good high speed flying to the cloud location
• sufficient endurance
• weather radar

Typical aircraft used in cloud seeding operations by catergory:

SEP (Single-Engine Piston)

• Cessna 182 Skylane
• Cessna 206 Stationair
• Cessna 210 Centurion
• Beechcraft Bonanza
• Piper PA-24 Comanche
• Piper PA-32R Saratoga
• Piper PA-46 Mirage

MEP (Multi-Engine Piston)

• Piper PA-31
• Piper PA-34
• Piper PA-60
• Beechcraft 58
• Beechcraft 60
• Beechcraft 88
• Cessna 320
• Cessna 336
• Cessna 340
• Cessna 414
• Cessna 421
• Partenavia P.68
• Aero Commander 500

ME Turbine (Twin Turboprop)

• Beechcraft King Air 90
• Beechcraft King Air 200
• Beechcraft King Air 350
• Piper Cheyenne
• Mitsubishi MU-2
• Commander 690

Larger Utility and Transport

• Antonov An-26
• Antonov An-30
• Antonov An-32
• Ilyushin Il-18
• C-123 Provider
• C-130 Hercules
• Xi'an MA60
• Basler BT-67
• Shaanxi Y-8
• CASA C-212 Aviocar

Jet aircraft

• Boeing WC-135
• Lockheed C-141
• Ilyushin Il-76
• Tupolev Tu-16
• Bombardier Challenger
• Gulfstream II
• Gulfstream III
• Learjet 35

Military Jet aircraft

• Dassault Alpha Jet
• Fouga CM.170 Magister
• Cessna T-37 Tweet
• Northrop T-38 Talon

All of these aircraft are no longer in operational use for cloud seeding today, and some of them were used only in research or experimental weather modification programs.

Operations by country

Asia

China

Xian MA60 cloud seeding aircraft of China Meteorological Administration

The largest cloud seeding system is in the People's Republic of China. They believe that it increases the amount of rain over several increasingly arid regions, including its capital city, Beijing, by firing silver iodide rockets into the sky where rain is desired. There is even political strife caused by neighbouring regions that accuse each other of "stealing rain" using cloud seeding. China used cloud seeding in Beijing just before the 2008 Olympic Games in order to have a dry Olympic season. In February 2009, China also blasted iodide sticks over Beijing to artificially induce snowfall after four months of drought, and blasted iodide sticks over other areas of northern China to increase snowfall. The snowfall in Beijing lasted for approximately three days and led to the closure of 12 main roads around Beijing. At the end of October 2009 Beijing claimed it had its earliest snowfall since 1987 due to cloud seeding. According to "research paper from Tsinghua University, the Chinese weather authorities used weather modification to ensure the sky was clear and lower air pollution" on 1 July 2021, as the Chinese Communist party celebrated its centenary with a major celebration. The celebration took place in Tiananmen Square. The paper was published on 26 November 2021 in a peer-review journal called Environment Science (via South China Morning Post). The research shows that the Chinese government used cloud-seeding techniques to force rainfall the evening before the celebration event. This rainfall lowered the amount of PM2.5 pollution by more than two-thirds. That helped improve the air quality at the time from "moderate" to "good".

India

In India, cloud seeding operations were conducted during the years 1983, 1984–87, and 1993–94 by the Tamil Nadu Government due to severe drought. In the years 1999 to 2004, 2006 and 2010 Karnataka government attempted cloud seeding without much success. Cloud seeding operations were also conducted in 2003 and 2004 through in the state of Maharashtra with inconclusive results.

In October 2025, cloud seeding was conducted to improve the air quality over Delhi but the experiment yielded no significant results.

Iran

In 1946, the Iranian government tried to fertilize Iran's clouds with the help of Americans, but it was unsuccessful. Then in 1947, in Article 19 of the Law on Water and its Nationalisation, the then Ministry of Water and Electricity was obliged to provide the water needed by the country in various ways, including cloud fertilization. Accordingly, the Ministry of Energy between 1953 and 1957, in cooperation with a Canadian company and using aircraft and silver iodide compound fertilised the clouds that were over the Karaj and Jajrud dam area.

After the revolution of 1978, in the years 1989 to 1995, cloud fertilisation was carried out in a scattered manner using ground generators in the heights of Shirkuh, Yazd. Then, with the announcement of the Minister of Energy in February 1996, the National Center for Cloud Fertility Research and Studies was established in Yazd and officially started working in 1997.

Israel

Cessna Skymaster 2015 Israel

Israel conducted experimental cloud seeding for seven years from 2014 to 2021. The practice involved emitting silver iodide from airplanes and ground stations and took place only in the northern parts of the country. Israel stopped the rain enhancement project in 2021 due to the experiment data showing that the practice was largely ineffective and expensive, and because there had been some recent years of unrelated significant rainfall.

Kuwait

To counter drought and a growing population in a desert region, Kuwait is embarking on its own cloud seeding program, with the local Environment Public Authority conducting a study to gauge its viability locally.

North Korea

Cloud seeding projects have been carried out in North Korea since the 1960s. Their initial purpose was to ensure a steady supply of water for the hydroelectric power stations located in the South Hamgyong Province. In the following decades, however, while research on utilising cloud resources was carried out, seeding operations themselves were almost nonexistent. Cloud seeding operations were prioritised again in the twenty-first century due to socio-economic requirements, and to mitigate natural disasters such as droughts and hailstorms. More recently, between 2017 and 2020, the Chungsan region was selected to carry out cloud seeding experiments over, which were seen to have enhanced precipitation in the region.

Pakistan

Pakistan has undergone its first-ever artificial rain experiment using cloud seeding, in a move carried out with the help of the United Arab Emirates. There was drizzle in 'at least 10 areas' of Lahore, consistently ranked the most polluted city in the world.

On Friday 15 November 2024, Pakistan successfully conducted a cloud seeding operation using locally developed technology, resulting in artificial rainfall to tackle the region’s smog crisis. The Meteorological Department confirmed rainfall in Jhelum, Gujar Khan, Chakwal, and Talagang, attributing it to the cloud seeding effort. Cloud seeding was conducted around 14:00, with subsequent rainfall observed within hours in Jhelum and Gujar Khan.

Sri Lanka

In January 2019, the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) and Ministry of Power, Energy and Business Development signed an agreement for a cloud seeding project, created in response to lower water levels for hydroelectric power due to dry weather. In February of that year, a group of officials from the SLAF, Ceylon Electricity Board, and meteorology and irrigation departments were sent to Thailand to study rainmaking projects carried out by the Department of Royal Rainmaking and Agricultural Aviation. On 22 March a Harbin Y-12 flew over the Maskeliya Reservoir at 2,400 m (7,900 ft), dispersing cloud seeding chemicals. Rain arrived the next day on 23 March, though project members had expected it to appear earlier on the 22nd. News First proclaimed that the pilot project had "proven to be a success", while Mongabay described it as a "failed attempt" that had "fallen short" and highlighted various climate experts who recommended that the government conduct more research into the project's potential environmental effects before proceeding further.

United Arab Emirates

Beechcraft King Air C90 used for cloud seeding operations in UAE

Cloud seeding in the United Arab Emirates is a weather modification technique used by the government to address water challenges in the country. Cloud seeding is also referred to as man made precipitation and artificial rain making. The United Arab Emirates is one of the first countries in the Persian Gulf region to use cloud seeding technology. UAE scientists use cloud seeding technology to address the country's water insecurity, which stems from the extremely hot climate. They use weather radars to continuously monitor the atmosphere of the country. Forecasters and scientists have estimated that cloud seeding operations can enhance rainfall by as much as 30-35% percent in a clear atmosphere, and up to 10-15% in a more humid atmosphere. This practice has caused concerns regarding the impact on the environment because it is difficult to predict its long-term global implications.

Southeast Asia

In Southeast Asia, open-burning haze pollutes the regional environment. Cloud seeding has been used to improve the air quality by encouraging rainfall. On 20 June 2013, Indonesia said it will begin cloud-seeding operations following reports from Singapore and Malaysia that smog caused by forest and bush fires in Sumatra have disrupted daily activities in the neighbouring countries. On 25 June 2013, hailstones were reported to have fallen over some parts of Singapore. Despite NEA denials, some believe that the hailstones are the result of cloud seeding in Indonesia.

Indonesia

In Jakarta, cloud seeding was tested in 2013 to minimize flood risk in anticipation of heavy floods, according to the Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology. The practice has continued up to March 2025, national and provincial disaster agencies used cloud seeding over the sea north of Jakarta, with the aim of shifting rainfall away from land and toward the sea, costing about 200 million rupiahs (US$12,292) for each flyover.

Malaysia

In Malaysia, cloud seeding was first used in 1988 for three purposes: filling up dams, lessening the effects of haze, and fighting forest fires. In 2015, cloud seeding was done daily in Malaysia since the haze began in early-August. Johor Water Regulatory Body focused to produce rain over dams with critically low water levels. They used Cessna 340 with tubes of ioidised salt, flying from their operation base at Senai International Airport.

Thailand

Main article: Royal Rainmaking Project

CASA C-212 Aviocar of KASET Thailand

The Thailand Royal Rainmaking Project (Thai: โครงการฝนหลวง, RTGS: khrongkan fon luang) was initiated in November 1955 by King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Thai farmers repeatedly suffered the effects of drought. The king resolved to do something about it and proposed a solution to the dearth of rain: artificial rainmaking, or cloud seeding. The program is run by the Department of Royal Rainmaking and Agricultural Aviation. Thailand started a rain-making project in the late-1950s, known today as the Royal Rainmaking Project. Its first efforts scattered sea salt in the air to catch the humidity and dry ice to condense the humidity to form clouds. The project took about ten years of experiments and refinement. The first field operations began in 1969 above Khao Yai National Park. Since then the Thai government claims that rainmaking has been successfully applied throughout Thailand and neighbouring countries. The king received recognition for the Royal Rainmaking Project from the Eureka organization in 2001 for an invention that is beneficial to the world. In 2009, Jordan received permission from Thailand to use the technique. On 12 October 2005 the European Patent Office granted to King Bhumibol Adulyadej the patent EP 1 491 088 Weather modification by royal rainmaking technology. The budget of the Department of Royal Rainmaking and Agricultural Aviation in FY2019 was 2,224 million baht.

Vietnam

In Vietnam, during the leadup to and initial stages of the Battle of Điện Biên Phủ in 1954, the French Far East Expeditionary Corps looked into the possibility of using cloud seeding to impede Việt Minh flow of supplies through Route Provinciale 41, a dirt road leading into Điện Biên Phủ that would become more difficult to navigate during the rainy season. General Henri Navarre authorized research into using cloud seeding this way on March 16, just before the outbreak of the battle, and a test commenced the following month. Results were disappointing; while it did not take long for the rain clouds to form and release precipitation, they often drifted away from Route Provinciale 41 in the process, reducing their ability to hinder Việt Minh logistics.

North America

United States

See also: Project Stormfury

In the United States, cloud seeding is used to increase precipitation in areas experiencing drought, to reduce the size of hailstones that form in thunderstorms, and to reduce the amount of fog in and around airports. In the summer of 1948, the usually humid city of Alexandria, Louisiana, under Mayor Carl B. Close, seeded a cloud with dry ice at the municipal airport during a drought; quickly 22 mm (0.85 in) of rain fell.

Major ski resorts occasionally use cloud seeding to induce snowfall. Eleven western states and one Canadian province (Alberta) had ongoing weather modification operational programs in 2012. In 2006, an US$8.8 million project began in Wyoming to examine cloud seeding's effects on snowfall over Wyoming's Medicine Bow, Sierra Madre, and Wind River mountain ranges.

In Oregon, Portland General Electric used Hood River seeding to produce snow for hydro power in 1974-1975. The results were substantial, but caused an undue burden on the locals, who experienced overpowering rainfall, causing street collapses and mudslides. PGE discontinued its seeding practices the next year.

In 1978, the U.S. signed the Environmental Modification Convention, which bans the use of weather modification for hostile purposes.

As of 2022, seven agencies in California are conducting cloud seeding operations using silver iodide, including the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which began employing the technique in 1969 to increase the water supply to its hydroelectric power plants, and reported that it results in "an average of 3 to 10% increase in [Sierra Nevada] snowpack".

Canada

During the sixties, Irving P. Krick & Associates operated a successful cloud seeding operation in the area around Calgary, Alberta. This utilised both aircraft and ground-based generators that pumped silver iodide into the atmosphere in an attempt to reduce the threat of hail damage. Ralph Langeman, Lynn Garrison, and Stan McLeod, all ex-members of the RCAF's 403 Squadron, attending the University of Alberta, spent their summers flying hail suppression. The Alberta Hail Suppression Project is continuing with C$3 million a year in funding from insurance companies to reduce hail damage in southern Alberta.

Europe

Bulgaria

Bulgaria operates a national network of hail protection, silver iodide rocket sites, strategically located in agricultural areas such as the rose valley. Each site protects an area of 10 sq. km (4 sq. mi.), the density of the site clusters is such that at least 2 sites will be able to target a single hail cloud, initial detection of hail cloud formation to firing of the rockets is typically 7–10 minutes in its entire process with a view to seed the formation of much smaller hailstones, high in the atmosphere that will melt before reaching ground level.

Data collated since the 1960s suggests huge agricultural sector losses are avoided yearly with the protection system, unseeded the hail will flatten entire regions, with seeding this can be reduced to minor leaf damage from the smaller hailstones that failed to melt.

France and Spain

Cloud seeding began in France during the 1950s with the intent of reducing hail damage to crops. The ANELFA () project consists of local agencies acting within a non-profit organization. A similar project in Spain is managed by the Consorcio por la Lucha Antigranizo de Aragon. The success of the French program was supported by analysis made by Jean Dessens based on insurance data; that of the Spanish program in studies conducted by the Spanish Agricultural Ministry. However, Jean Dessens's results were heavily criticized and doubt was cast on the effectiveness of ground generator seeding. ()

Russia

The Soviet Union created a specifically designed version of the Antonov An-30 aerial survey aircraft, the An-30M Sky Cleaner, with eight containers of solid carbon dioxide in the cargo area plus external pods containing meteorological cartridges that could be fired into clouds. Russian government spends millions on 'cloud seeding' technology to ensure it doesn't rain on May Day public holiday. A single contractor was hired to employ a technique which involves dispersing clouds and forcing them to rain before the time they naturally would – dropping the rain on other places and at other times, so they don’t affect specific events. In 2020, Russia used cloud seeding to help fight Siberian forest fires. The Russian government has also used cloud seeding technology in Crimea to alleviate drought which was caused as a result of Ukraine blocking the Crimean Canal. Russia published a review of the weather electromagnetic correction technology in 2015, which was developed in the 1980s in the USSR and shares technology with India.

Partenavia P.68 Hagelflieger - Germany

Germany

Cessna 210 2006 Austria

In Germany civic engagement societies organize cloud seeding on a region level. A registered society maintains aircraft for cloud seeding to protect agricultural areas from hail in the district Rosenheim, the district Miesbach, the district Traunstein (all located in southern Bavaria, Germany) and the district Kufstein (located in Tyrol, Austria).

Cloud seeding is also used in Baden-Württemberg, a federal state particularly known for its winegrowing culture. The districts of Ludwigsburg, Heilbronn, Schwarzwald-Baar and Rems-Murr, as well as the cities Stuttgart and Esslingen participate in a program to prevent the formation of hailstones. Reports from a local insurance agency suggest that the cloud seeding activities in the Stuttgart area have prevented about €5 million in damages in 2015 while the project's annual upkeep is priced at only €325.000. Another society for cloud seeding operates in the district of Villingen-Schwenningen.

Austria

Cessna 210B Hagelflieger Austria

Austria has two hail defence organizations: Steirische Hagel Abwehr, with four aircraft: Cessna 182 and Südflug with three aircraft: Cessna 150L, Cessna 182P, Partenavia P.68 at Graz Airport.

Slovenia

Slovenia's oldest aeroclub Letalski Centre Maribor carries air defence against hail as a specialised EASA operation. The Cessna TU206G Turbo Stationair 6 II is equipped with external aggregates and flares for flying. Three crew members work in the operation. Two are the pilots in the plane and the third is the radar operator on the ground. The purpose of the defence is to prevent damage to farmland and cities in the areas of Styria and Prekmurje - aircraft hail suppression. They have been carrying out defence since 1983. Silver iodide is used as a reagent. The base is at Maribor Edvard Rusjan Airport. The activity is financed by local communities and the Ministry of Agriculture, it has great support among people and farmers from all over the countryside. Project's annual budget in 2025 was €346.922,73 with value added tax.

United Kingdom

Project Cumulus was a UK government initiative to investigate weather manipulation, in particular through cloud seeding experiments, operational between 1949 and 1952. A conspiracy theory has circulated that the Lynmouth flood of 1952 was caused by secret cloud seeding experiments carried out by the Royal Air Force. However, meteorologist Philip Eden has given several reasons why "it is preposterous to blame the Lynmouth flood on such experiments".

Australia

Cessna 441 Conquest II used to conduct cloud-seeding flights in the Australian state of Tasmania

In Australia, summer activities of CSIRO and Hydro Tasmania over central and western Tasmania between the 1960s and the present day appear to have been successful. Seeding over the Hydro-Electricity Commission catchment area on the Central Plateau achieved rainfall increases as high as 30% in autumn. The Tasmanian experiments were so successful that the Commission has regularly undertaken seeding ever since in mountainous parts of the State.

In 2004, Snowy Hydro Limited began a trial of cloud seeding to assess the feasibility of increasing snow precipitation in the Snowy Mountains in Australia. The test period, originally scheduled to end in 2009, was later extended to 2014. The New South Wales (NSW) Natural Resources Commission, responsible for supervising the cloud seeding operations, believes that the trial may have difficulty establishing statistically whether cloud seeding operations are increasing snowfall. This project was discussed at a summit in Narrabri, NSW on 1 December 2006. The summit met with the intention of outlining a proposal for a 5-year trial, focusing on Northern NSW.

The various implications of such a widespread trial were discussed, drawing on the combined knowledge of several worldwide experts, including representatives from the Tasmanian Hydro Cloud Seeding Project however does not make reference to former cloud seeding experiments by the then-Snowy Mountains Authority, which rejected weather modification. The trial required changes to NSW environmental legislation in order to facilitate placement of the cloud seeding apparatus. The modern experiment is not supported for the Australian Alps.

In December 2006, the Queensland government of Australia announced a A$7.6 million in funding for "warm cloud" seeding research to be conducted jointly by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the United States National Center for Atmospheric Research. Outcomes of the study are hoped to ease continuing drought conditions in the states South East region.

In March 2020, scientists from the Sydney Institute of Marine Science and Southern Cross University trialled marine cloud seeding off the coast of Queensland, Australia, with the aim to protect Great Barrier Reef from coral bleaching and dieoff during marine heatwaves. Using two high-pressure turbines, the team sprayed microscopic droplets of saltwater into the air. These then evaporate leaving behind very small salt crystals, which water vapour clings to, creating clouds that reflect the sun more effectively.

Africa

Alpha jet 2014 Morocco

In Mali and Niger, cloud seeding is also used on a national scale. It has also been used between 1999 and 2002 in Burkina Faso and from 2005 in Senegal. Cloud seeding experiments and operations were also conducted in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) between 1968 and 1980.

Morocco

In 1985 the Moroccan Government started with a Cloud seeding program called 'Al-Ghait'. Morocco utilizes an active weather modification initiative known as Programme Al Ghait, which artificially enhances rainfall through cloud seeding to combat severe, persistent droughts. Originally established in 1984 in collaboration with the United States, the Moroccan government has significantly ramped up funding and infrastructure for the program.

Legal frameworks and implications

Existing international legislation

The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) is the only international framework related to the regulation of weather and climate modification technologies. Developed after cloud-seeding operations were conducted during the Vietnam War and the Cold War, the convention's scope of application solely encompasses military or any other hostile uses of weather modification technologies. Indeed, the use of weather modification programs for peaceful purposes is not prohibited by the treaty. ENMOD has been criticised for its many weaknesses, notably regarding the vagueness and ambiguity of notions leaving room for various interpretations.

Ownership of clouds

Given the growing attractiveness of weather modification programs, the legal framework offered by ENMOD is arguably insufficient, as the question of "ownership" is not answered. A 1948 article in the Stanford Law Review stated that attributing a "legal title to a cloud would be ridiculous" due to the distinct nature of clouds, their perpetual change of form and location, their emergence, disappearance and renewal. Similarly, Brooks considers private ownership of clouds as "nonsense" as control is limited to the short moment of the cloud being above somebody's land. Quilleré-Majzoub (2004) dismisses the concept of ownership of clouds altogether, given their specific nature, rendering the idea of a cloud ever belonging to somebody unsubstantiated. Indeed, clouds are beyond occupancy – similar to air, running water, the sea and animals ferae naturae – and should thus be considered as common property. Based on this assumption, according to Quilleré-Majzoub it follows that a distinction between res communis, belonging to everybody and thus necessitating international regulation, and res nullius, belonging to nobody with states serving themselves as they please, is more suitable. Although water is generally considered as res nullius in international law, there is strong pressure to acknowledging it as res communis, but cloud moisture does currently not have a clearly defined status. She thus suggests that international law should elaborate a jurisdictional regime that takes into account both the particular nature of clouds and the implications of new technologies.

According to Brooks (1948) the picture changes once the moisture in the clouds is made accessible through artificial rainmaking technologies, as the rainwater can now be occupied. Typically, regarding naturally occurring precipitation, the first to reduce it to possession, normally the landowner, will gain rights in it as long as no existing rights are violated. Given that this benefit is accorded by nature, these natural rights should not allow the landowner to claim artificially induced rain. California legislation binds water generated through seeding to existing surface water rights and groundwater regulations, considering the produced water "natural supply". Yet courts could decide that the induced rain should be designated as "additional precipitation", permitting the cloud-seeding entity to claim a portion of this generated water. This approach would also face challenges, given the difficulty of determining the fraction of extra water procured by cloud seeding.

Conspiracy theories

See also: Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Cloud seeding has been the focus of many theories based on the belief that governments manipulate the weather in order to control various conditions, including global warming, populations, military weapons testing, public health, and flooding. This speculation has been fuelled in part by government interventions and programs like Operation Popeye.

A 2016 classified ad placed by Los Angeles County's Department of Public Works in the Pasadena Star News sparked claims that widespread weather modification was being confirmed. The department followed up with a clarification that it was only describing cloud seeding, used as an anti-drought measure intermittently for more than half a century in Los Angeles.