My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11044
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11044
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:15:49 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:41:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8281
Description
Colorado River Studies and Investigations
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1978
Title
Evaluation of Cloud Seeding in Utah
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />APPROACH <br /> <br />The approach that has been utilized is similar to the one used in the <br /> <br />N <br />~ <br /> <br />previous evaluation, e.g., a statistical one, using the correlation between <br /> <br />N <br /> <br />a control area and a target area to determine the apparent effectiveness of seeding. <br /> <br />The previous evaluation, which was done for the three winter seasons from 1973-74 <br /> <br />through 1975-76, included the months of November through March. <br /> <br />Dr. Geoffrey Hill of the Utah Water Research Laboratory in his review of <br /> <br />the NAWC evaluation was critical of the results citing the fact that the NAWC <br /> <br />evaluation included the unseeded months of November and December 1973 and December <br /> <br />1974 while it eliminated the month of February 1976 because of. the exceptional <br /> <br />precipitation in the control areas. Hill felt that if February 1976 was to be <br /> <br />considered as an extra-ordinary month, and therefore it should be left out of the <br /> <br />sample, then similar data should be removed from the unseeded data set to eliminate <br /> <br />any positive bias towards seeding. <br /> <br />Hill concluded that the evaluation of the snowpack data was .invalid for the <br /> <br />same reason, i.e., the data set included three months of unseeded precipitation. <br /> <br />In addition, Hill indicated that warm March 1974 temperatures in Nevada and Arizona <br /> <br />affected the snowmelt making it appear that there was more precipitation in Utah <br /> <br />than would be expected based upon Nevada and Arizona data. <br /> <br />To eliminate these concerns, the current approach has been to restrict the <br /> <br />evaluation to only those months which were consistently seeded during all the <br /> <br />seeded years. Therefore, only the months of January, February, and March were <br /> <br />selected for the seeded years of 1974-1978. Likewise, only precipitation amounts <br /> <br />have been used in the evaluation and no attempt has been made to evaluate snowpack <br /> <br />or strea.mflow. <br /> <br />- 2 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.