Several manuscripts were submitted and rejected  by Amer. Meteor. Soc.  journals (denoted by a blue font), but still great! (the author claims).   Note to authors:  Sometimes rejection means you have something really good.
=================In Chronological Order===============
1977:  Tracer and Diffusion and Cloud Microphysical Studies in the American River Basin.  Final Report to the Bureau of Reclamation (pdf)
1978:  A Reanalysis of the Skagit Cloud Seeding Project. J. Appl, Meteor. (pdf)
1979:  A Reanalysis of the Wolf Creek Pass Cloud Seeding Experiment. J. Appl, Meteor(pdf)
1979:  Comments on the Climax and Wolf Creek Pass Cloud Seeding Experiments.  J. Appl, Meteor. (pdf)
1980:  Comments on “Randomized Cloud Seeding in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado.” J. Appl, Meteor. (pdf)
1980:  Comments on “Generalized Criteria for Seeding Winter Orographic Clouds” J. Appl, Meteor. (pdf)
1981:  Comments on “Reanalysis of ‘Generalized Criteria for Seeding Winter Orographic Clouds’ ” J. Appl, Meteor. (pdf)
1981:  Radar Detection of Cloud-Seeding Effects.  Science.  1pdf
      (In a burst of immodesty, this experiment was suggested by yours truly after he saw virga go over our vertically-pointed mm wavelength radar!)
1983:  Production of Ice Particles in Clouds Due to Aircraft Penetrations. J. Appl, Meteor. (pdf)
1984:  Further Observations of the Production of Ice Particles in Clouds by Aircraft. J. Appl, Meteor. (pdf)
1984:  Reply to Mossop.  J. Appl, Meteor. (pdf)
1985:  Ice particle concentrations in clouds.  J. Atmos. Sci. (pdf)
1986:  How Good Are Our Conceptual Models of Orographic Cloud Seeding?  (invited paper;  available via AMS Bookstore.  A classic, edited by Roscoe R. Braham, Jr.! yours via the AMS for only $60!  1pdf
1987:  Reply to Telford.  J. Atmos. Sci. (pdf)
1987:  Reply to somebody, maybe Mossop.  J. Atmos Sci. (pdf)
1987:  A Reevaluation of the Climax Cloud Seeding Experiments Using NOAA Published Data.  J. Climate Appl, Meteor(pdf)
1988:  Rain from Clouds with Tops Warmer than -10 C in Israel.  Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.  114, 495-513.  1pdf
1988:  Criteria for the Onset of Significant Concentrations of Ice Particles in Cumulus Clouds.  Atmos. Res. 122, 1-13. 1pdf
1990:  Rapid Development of High Ice Particle Concentrations in Small Polar Maritime Cumuliform Clouds.  J. Atmos. Sci. (pdf)
1991:  Ice particle concentrations and precipitation development in small polar maritime cumuliform clouds.  Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. (pdf)
1993:  Further Analyses of the Climax Cloud-Seeding Experiments.  J. Climate Appl, Meteor., 32, 1837-1847. (pdf)
1994:  Ice particle concentrations and precipitation development in small continental cumuliform clouds.  Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. (pdf)
1995:  A New Look at the Israeli Cloud Seeding Experiments.  J. Appl, Meteor., 34, 1169-1193.  (pdf)
1995:  Replies to Gabriel and Mielke. J. Appl, Meteor(pdf)
1996: Precipitation from a Maritime Cloud Layer with Very Low Droplet Concentrations.  Atmos. Res., 40, 99-107  1pdf
1997:  Reply to Woodley.  J. Appl, Meteor(pdf)
1997:  Reply to Dennis and Orville.  J. Appl, Meteor(pdf)
1997:  Reply to Ben-Zvi.  J. Appl, Meteor(pdf)
1997:  Reply to Rosenfeld  J. Appl, Meteor(pdf)
1997:  Comprehensive Reply to Rosenfeld.  University of Washington.  1pdf
1998:  Microstructures of Low and Middle-Level Clouds Over the Beaufort Sea.  Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc124, 2035-2071. pdf
*1998:  Reply to “Comments by Alan M. Blyth and John Latham on ‘Cumulus Glaciation Papers by P. V. Hobbs and A. L. Rangno.’” Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 124, 1007-1011. 1998 Colloquy between Blyth_and Latham and Hobbs and Rangno over ice in clouds
1999: Cloud seeding and the journal barriers to faulty claims:  closing the gaps.  (submitted twice to Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.!  Rejected TWICE!  Very exciting.  Published online this blog only, in August 2016. Gaps-Revised-following-review_latest
2000:  Comments on a “Review of Cloud Seeding and Some New Prospects.” Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.  583-585.   pdf
2001:  Ice Particles in Stratiform Clouds in the Arctic and Possible Mechanisms for the Production of High Ice Concentrations J. Geophys Res. 106, 15065-15075.  pdf
2001:  Airborne Studies of Cloud Structures Over the Arctic Ocean and Comparisons With Retrievals From Ship-Based Remote Sensing Measurements  J. Geophys. Res. (pdf)
2002:  Clouds-Classification.  In Encyclopedia of the Atmospheric Sciences, J. Holton and J. Curry, Eds., Academic Press.  All six vols new, yours for $2,800!  Used from $183.
2003:  The Classification of Clouds, In Handbook of Weather Climate, and Water.  John Wiley and Sons.
2004:  Super-Large Raindrops.  Geophys. Res. Letts. 31, L13101-L13102doi:10.1029/2004GL020167  pdf**
2005:  Microstructures and Precipitation Development in Cumulus and Small Cumulonimbus Clouds over the Warm Pool of the Tropical Pacific Ocean.  Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc. 131, 639-673.  2pdf
2006:  Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification Research at the Cloud and Aerosol Research Group at the University of Washington, 1963-2005. In Achievements in Weather Modification, United Arab Emirates, 43-46. Award_manuscript  Also exciting:  Two UW Researchers Honored by UN
2006:  On the Status and Needs of Weather Modification: Viewpoint from a Reanalyst Non-submitted MS to Bulletin of the Amer. Meteor. Soc. 10-24-06,  but date says Aug 31, 2006_final version.  Felt it was a hopeless effort.  Would never get past reviewers under BAS Chief Editorship, so gave up–not good.
2008:  Fragmentation of Freezing Drops in Shallow Maritime Frontal Clouds  (J. Atmos. Sci.)
2010:  Aircraft-Induced Hole Punch and Canal Clouds: Inadvertent Cloud Seeding.  Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc(pdf)
2017:  A (very tardy) Critical Review (and Enhancement)  of the NRC-NAS 2003-“Critical-issues-in-weather-modification”_latest-version, posted online only since nobody cares anymore.
2017:  Cloud Seeding and the Journal Barriers to Faulty Claims:  Closing the Gaps (updated).  2017.  pdf 2017 Gaps-revised following comments    Submitted to Adv. in Meteor. Special Edition on Weather Modification.  (Rejected without going out for peer review.  L. Xue,  editor:  “Not the kind of paper we were looking for.” )  Maybe it will be the kind that YOU were looking for! Originally submitted to BAMS in 1997, rejected in 1999.
2017:  A comprehensive review of “Cloud microphysical background for the Israeli-4 cloud seeding experiment” by Freud, E., H. Koussevitsky,  T. Goren and D. Rosenfeld, (published in 2015 by Atmospheric Research).  Contains a recap of  the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s cloud seeding experiments as seen by a long-time observer.   Too late for submission the J. Ed said.  PDF here:  Review of Freud et al
2018:  A Review and Enhancement of Chapter 7 of AMS Monograph 58:  “Secondary Ice Production:  Current State of the Science and Future Recommendations.”  Accepted for publication at that time pending modifications; I didn’t do the modifications since I thought they took away faults in the article I thought readers should know about.  Review and enhancement of Field et al secondary ice
*The original commentary on our work by Blyth and Latham (1998) is one of the greatest papers of all time!
Why?  Because Blyth and Latham did something we don’t do enough of in science; comment on work that we have questions about or think is wrong.  The reasons for this lack of action by our peers are obvious to those who publish.   Those being criticized or whose work is being challenged might review the manuscripts and proposals of those who have criticized them.    Therefore, they MIGHT thwart those publications and proposals if such exchanges  end up being grudge matches. I loved what B&L98 did!
And I couldn’t wait to congratulate Prof. Blyth in person later that year at conference for his looking into our work!  This is how science should be and I wanted to show that.  Of course, we still think our work is correct, it goes without saying…
**Got us a Guinness World record certificate!   BTW,  a larger drop (1 cm diameter!) was measured by Ken Beard, U of Il, Urbana, in a HI project years earlier, but he and co-authors didn’t publish it.  Found out about this larger drop in a private correspondence after our report came out.  We didn’t know how Guinness became aware of our measurement to award us that certificate.