My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WMOD00279
CWCB
>
Weather Modification
>
Backfile
>
WMOD00279
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2009 2:29:19 PM
Creation date
7/18/2007 2:18:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Weather Modification
Title
Applied Weather Associates Responses to Corps of Engineers Questions on the AWS Study of Cherry Creek PMP, Sept 2006
Prepared For
USACE
Prepared By
Applied Weather Associates
Date
1/29/2007
County
Douglas
Weather Modification - Doc Type
General Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 />j~ "'4t..... <br /> <br />7. Page 53. Why was the date for Temporal Transposition not moved 15 days towards the <br />Warm Season for the 1935 event? <br /> <br />A W A response to Question 7. <br /> <br />The NWS analysis of this storm recognized that the upper air temperatures associated with this <br />event were very cold for the time of year that the storm occurred (end of May) (HMR 13, pages <br />2-5). NWS concluded that this unseasonably cold upper air contributed significantly to the <br />rainfall event but was unlikely to occur any later in the late Spring 1 early Summer season. <br />Section 3.2.3, page 28, ofHMR 51 states "The record-breaking cold air mass associated with <br />this storm could not reasonably occur 15 days later into the warm season. Therefore, the normal <br />procedure of adjusting storms 15 days into the warm season (section 2.3.4) was not applied. " <br />A W A concurred with this conclusion and did not apply the 15-day temporal transposition to this <br />storm, <br /> <br />8. Page 55. Were any additional storm centerings tried for the 1935 storm? Note: It appears <br />that moving the center to the north would result in a higher basin average rainfall. <br /> <br />A W A response to Question 8. <br /> <br />Alternate centering was tried for all storms including the 1935 storm. Moving the 1935 isohyetal <br />pattern northward would move larger rainfall values over the southern end of the watershed but <br />the area of these larger rainfall values was relatively small. The northward movement of the <br />rainfall pattern would eliminate a larger volume of rainfall that had been over and south ofthe <br />Cherry Creek Reservoir. A W A believes that the centering used produced the greatest volume of <br />rainfall within the basin boundaries and that moving the pattern to the north would produce <br />slightly less or effectively the same rainfall volume, <br /> <br />9. Page 62. What does "Pseudo-Adiabatic Method" mean? Note: All other tables are labeled <br />"Total Adjustment Factor". <br /> <br />A W A response to Question 9, <br /> <br />The term "pseudo-adiabatic method" has been used in other studies and is exactly the procedure <br />used in this study. All adjustments made in this study were accomplished using the pseudo- <br />adiabatic method for all storm maximization, transposition, elevation and barrier height <br />adjustments. The Table of Precipitable Water in HMR 55A, Appendix C was used to determine <br />the precipitable water values used in the calculations. The heading to this table notes that a <br />saturated atmosphere with pseudoadiabatic lapse rate used. For consistency, Total Adjustment <br />Factor should have been used on page 62. <br /> <br />10. Page 69. It should be noted that different centers were shown in March 2003 report for the <br />1965 Falcon storm, but the basin average rainfall is the same. Is this correct? <br /> <br />A W A response to Question 10, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.