The reading and listening both discuses " cloud seeding" which is a process for converting hail to snow. The article strongly postulates three theories to provide the effectiveness of the process for crop protection in the United States. However, the lecturer refutes all of the reasons and claims that their effectivity is unclear by presenting counter-arguments for each of the assertions.
First and foremost, the passage begins by asserting " laboratory experiments" evidence that when silver iodide is added to the cold water vapors it resulted in the production of snow which is very similar to hail as it also produces water vapors close to it freezing temperature. This point is challenged by the lecturer by pointing out that it could be possible under experimental conditions, but in real life scenario silver iodide cause precipitation in clouds which would affect snow, rain, and hail all. The professor elaborates this point by mentioning that the addition of chemicals in real life would result in drought in areas where there is low rainfall, and subsequently, lack of water would damage the crops.
Next, the professor in the lecture rejects the theory by illustrating the fact. In Asia, the procedure was adopted in urban areas and big cities where contributing factors play major role in the declination of hail. For instance, urban areas contain factories and industries, while it was noticed that pollutants from these industries interact with clouds and chemicals. As a result of their interaction, such conditions would have been created that had success the snow production. Whereas, the success of this method seems impossible in farmland where there are no pollution particles. These points refute the writer's implication that positive results from some urban areas in Asia would be a piece of evidence for the productivity of cloud seeding.
Ultimately, the article wraps its arguments by declaring that a study done in Central united states farm has also proven that no crop damage was observed because of reduced hailing. The speaker in the listening rebuts this point by insisting that though hail damage was reduced in the central part of the US, there were no signs of hailing seen in the east and south region of the country too. It indicates that the whole area experiences the same decline that is because of natural variation in weather and had nothing to do with cloud seeding.
The reading and listening both discuses
"
;
cloud
seeding"
; which is a process for converting
hail
to
snow
. The article
strongly
postulates three theories to provide the effectiveness of the process for crop protection in the United States.
However
, the lecturer refutes
all of the
reasons and claims that their effectivity is unclear by presenting counter-arguments for each of the assertions.
First
and foremost, the passage
begins
by asserting
"
; laboratory
experiments"
; evidence that when silver iodide is
added
to the
cold
water vapors it resulted in the production of
snow
which is
very
similar to
hail
as it
also
produces water vapors close to it freezing temperature. This
point
is challenged
by the lecturer by pointing out that it could be possible under experimental conditions,
but
in real life scenario silver iodide cause precipitation in
clouds
which would affect
snow
, rain, and
hail
all. The professor elaborates this
point
by mentioning that the addition of chemicals in real life would result in drought in
areas
where there is low rainfall, and
subsequently
, lack of water would damage the crops.
Next
, the professor in the lecture rejects the theory by illustrating the fact. In Asia, the procedure
was adopted
in urban
areas
and
big
cities where contributing factors play major role in the declination of
hail
.
For instance
, urban
areas
contain factories and industries, while it
was noticed
that pollutants from these industries interact with
clouds
and chemicals.
As a result
of their interaction, such conditions would have
been created
that had success the
snow
production.
Whereas
, the success of this method seems impossible in farmland where there are no pollution particles. These
points
refute the writer's implication that
positive
results from
some
urban
areas
in Asia would be a piece of evidence for the productivity of
cloud
seeding.
Ultimately
, the article wraps its arguments by declaring that a study done in Central
united states
farm has
also
proven that no crop damage
was observed
because
of
reduced
hailing. The speaker in the listening rebuts this
point
by insisting that though
hail
damage was
reduced
in the central part of the US, there were no signs of hailing
seen
in the east and south region of the country too. It indicates that the whole
area
experiences the same decline
that is
because
of natural variation in weather and had nothing to do with
cloud
seeding.