Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />except during a limited time for one aircraft pass over the TAR site. Later in the experiment, few IN were <br />encountered at the surface on the Plateau. <br /> <br />For the present case study, the modeling suggests the valley-released AgI had an initial vertical impetus by <br />the gravity wave mechanism which provided transport above the surface inversion. This was followed by <br />orographic forcing in a more organized westerly flow. The model confirmed the confinement of the <br />plume to a shallow layer and subsequent lifting due again to a gravity wave was further eastward in the <br />vicinity of the TAR site: It may be possible to exploit the influence of gravity waves in surface-based <br />seeding strategies. This was explored by Heimbach and Hall (1994) who applied the model to several <br />source configurations.' Super (1994) suggested that targeting might be enhanced if releases were from a <br />mountain upwind of the Plateau (San Pitch). For the-current case, we suggest that the upwind side of this <br />barrier would be appropriate. Figure 6 also indicates that the W side of the Sanpete Valley could provide <br />some initial upward impetus; however, the subsequent downward portion of the gravity wave could have a <br />detrimental influence on targeting. Releases further upwind of the current valley sites have the <br />disadvantage of greater dispersion which would reduce the concentrations over the target, and greater <br />difficulty in horizontal ~geting. Also, the increased fetch would make targeting more difficult. <br /> <br />8.21. Heimbach, J. A., and A. B. Super, 1996: Simulating the influence of type II error on the outcome <br />of past statistical experiments. J. Applied Meteorology, 35, 1551-1567. <br /> <br />ABSTRACT <br /> <br />Simulations of randomized winter orographic weather modification experiments were used to explore a <br />possible cause of the many inconclusive results from previous statistical experiments. There is increasing <br />evidence that the response to cloud treatment is highly variable due to differences in the availability of <br />cloud liquid water, seeding agents, targeting effectiveness, and other factors. For this reason the <br />simulations described in this paper focus on the sensitivity of previously applied statistical techniques to <br />different responses to seeding.. Data for the simulations came from two sources: the Bridger Ranger <br />Experiments (BRE). conducted during the two winters from 1970 to 1972, and SNOTEL (snowpack <br />telemetry) data from the Boise. Idaho, area during the winters of 1985-92. The principal focus is on the <br />BRE data from which 6-h experimental units were extracted. This is because previous analyses of these <br />data support the notion of a variable treatment response. Twenty-four-hour experimental units from the <br />BRE and Idaho datasets were also incorporated into the simulations. <br /> <br />The simulations indicate a sensitivity to the size of the fraction of seeded units, which had a treatment <br />response with the power of the test being significantly reduced as the fraction of seeded units showing a <br />response decreased. It is suggested that past estimates of experimental duration, based on the simple <br />model that assumed all seeded units have the same response were overly optimistic. The results may <br />partially explain the high frequency of inclusive results from past statistical cloud seeding experiments. <br />The implications of these results is described for past and future statistical weather modification <br />experiments. <br /> <br />, .. <br /> <br />Monte Carlo techniques were applied in simulations that assumed a randomized target-control experiment. <br />There were five models applied, which involved adding a percentage or constant responses to all or a <br />fraction of the ,seeded units and capping the maximum increment. Experimental units were randomly <br />selected from a pool of nonseeded cases. The selected units were randomly seeded or not seeded, and the <br />seeded units were again randomly selected to have all or a fraction of them show a treatment effect, while <br />keeping the net seasonal response approximately constant: For example, in the case of one out of three <br /> <br />71 <br /> <br />