The reading passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about whether it is a good idea to use " cloud seeding" method which was invented to eliminate hail. hail is pieces of ice is released from clouds instead of snow or rain. The article strongly postulates that this method is very beneficial because of three compelling evidence. On the other hand, the listening adamantly delineates that none of the author's proofs is convincing.
First and foremost, according to the professor in the lecture, this method might have worked in laboratory condition; however, in real life, it will prevent any precipitation which forms snow and so on. Eventually, it will lead crops to damage because of severe drought. Nonetheless, the author offsets these points by declaring that scientist proved that this cloud seeding is beneficial in their laboratory experiment. To be more specific, the scientist added silver iodide to water vapour and it creates light snow, not hail pellets.
On top of this, the lecturer further asserts that asian evidence can not be repeated in the us due to its difference of climates and locations. In other words, asian experiment was conducted in cities which have plenty of air pollution. Hence, this experiment might have influenced by air population and this could turn into favourable condition to work it. However, this cloud seeding idea cannot work in unpolluted areas. These claims refute the writer's implications about this method worked very well in asian several countries to control their precipitation in their towns. Therefore, this idea will definitely work in America as well.
Lastly, the speaker in the lecture suggests that the local studies were about hail-damaged fields demonstrated that this method also affected neighbour areas such as East and West region of the United States in a same particular year. Thus, it clearly indicates that the illustration of reduction in hail damage was caused by natural variation, not cloud seeding. Nevertheless, the article counters these indications by insisting that a few local studies showed that this idea gave benefits to some central areas of the us. According to this study, it was reported that the number of hail-damaged crops was diminished due to this new method introduction.
The reading passage and lecture have conflicting opinions about whether it is a
good
idea
to
use
"
;
cloud
seeding"
;
method
which
was invented
to eliminate
hail
.
hail
is pieces of ice
is released
from
clouds
instead
of snow or rain. The article
strongly
postulates that this
method
is
very
beneficial
because
of three compelling evidence.
On the other hand
, the listening
adamantly
delineates that none of the author's proofs is convincing.
First
and foremost, according to the professor in the lecture, this
method
might have worked in laboratory condition;
however
, in real life, it will
prevent
any precipitation which forms snow and
so
on.
Eventually
, it will lead crops to damage
because
of severe drought. Nonetheless, the author offsets these points by declaring that scientist proved that this
cloud
seeding is beneficial in their laboratory experiment. To be more specific, the scientist
added
silver iodide to water
vapour
and it creates light snow, not
hail
pellets.
On top of this, the lecturer
further
asserts that
asian
evidence can not
be repeated
in
the us
due to its difference of climates and locations.
In other words
,
asian
experiment
was conducted
in cities which have
plenty
of air pollution.
Hence
, this experiment might have influenced by air population and this could turn into
favourable
condition to work it.
However
, this
cloud
seeding
idea
cannot work in unpolluted areas. These claims refute the writer's implications about this
method
worked
very
well in
asian
several countries to control their precipitation in their towns.
Therefore
, this
idea
will definitely work in America
as well
.
Lastly
, the speaker in the lecture suggests that the local studies were about hail-damaged fields demonstrated that this
method
also
affected
neighbour
areas such as East and West region of the United States in a same particular year.
Thus
, it
clearly
indicates that the illustration of reduction in
hail
damage
was caused
by natural variation, not
cloud
seeding.
Nevertheless
, the article counters these indications by insisting that a few local studies
showed
that this
idea
gave benefits to
some
central areas of
the us
. According to this study, it
was reported
that the number of hail-damaged crops
was diminished
due to this new
method
introduction.