Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- DRAFl' OF JUNE 8, 1992 - <br />COLORADO RIVER BASIN EXPERIMENTAL SITE SELECTION <br /> <br />1. OVERVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN <br /> <br />Several so-called "statistical" seeding experiments have been conducted with winter <br />orographic (mountain-induced) clouds in the Western United States, particularly during <br />the 1960's and 1970's. Optimism that cloud seeding may be able enhance the winter <br />snowpack is largely based on statistical analyses of these experiments, and of some long- . <br />term operational projects. However, several statistical experiments have been <br />inconclusive, or have had their results challenged on physical grounds. Cause and effect <br />relationships between seeding and increased precipitation have not been fully documented <br />as pointed out in the recent AMS (American Meteorological Society) Policy Statement on <br />weather modification (AMS, 1992). The Policy Statement recommends that, "The physical <br />processes and specific conditions under which it is possible to increase, decrease, or <br />relocate precipitation should be fully defmed." It has become clear that much improved <br />"physical" experiments will be needed to validate and quantify seeding effectiveness. <br /> <br />Past statistical experiments all had a physical component. Without physical observations, <br />statistical analyses could not be applied. The problem has been the balance between <br />physical observations and statistics. Most past cloud seeding experiments were of the <br />"black box" type. While a detailed physical hypothesis may have been stated, actual <br />observations were usually limited to precipitation at the ground with, perhaps, some <br />supporting information on general cloud conditions (e.g., cloud top temperature, wind <br />velocity). Thus, most physical processes took place unobserved in a "black box". If the <br />statistical analyses did not indicate a seeding effect, there was no way to determine what <br />went wrong. The physical hypothesis may have been incorrect, application of the design <br />may have been faulty (e.g., frequent failure to target the seeding agent into the cloud), <br />statistical testing may have been insensitive, the experiment may have had a "bad draw", <br />or all of the above. A further problem with "black box" statistical designs is the difficulty <br />of transferring the results to other locations. <br /> <br />In recent years, improved instrumentation and knowledge have allowed much more <br />emphasis on observations of the key processes involved in the physical chain of events <br />following seeding. These include monitored release of the seeding agent, transport and <br />dispersion of the agent, nucleation of ice crystals within the SL W (supercooled liquid <br />water) cloud, subsequent ice particle growth by diffusion, accretion and aggregation, and <br />fallout of snowflakes to the surface. A limited number of what we will call "direct <br />detection" experiments have been carried out since 1985, which have validated the winter <br />orographic cloud seeding hypothesis in particular conditions. These types of experiments <br />need to be expanded in terms of better design and instrumentation, and in terms of <br />application to a wide range of meteorological conditions. A much improved <br />statistical/physical experiment can then be designed and conducted to quantify the <br />seasonal increases to be expected from properly conducted seeding. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />d,-k- /Uu.5J L <br />/"" c4'<.A-~ -Fl>r <br /> <br />c>" ~~~7::~) ~ r 0- I d~ k./j 10 7~>0- ~ <br /> <br />d,re.cj'! dec. ';"/~,/ f)~crve- 9ooi) {-la, lirA.. wtl~,,1 <br />