Laserfiche WebLink
<br />rational a1 temati ve is provided to Neyman, et aI' s, (1969) rather <br /> <br />hysterical charge that the relevant National Academy of Science <br /> <br />findings must have been the result of "selective reporting." <br /> <br />With respect to the fate of the silver iodide, that placed directly <br />in the updraft by the ARIDROP treatment was partly incorporated into <br />precipitation and washed to the ground and partly redispersed into <br />the atmosphere at an altitude high enough to preclude its involvement <br />in later forming clouds. The Catalina treatment, however, left a <br />considerable proportion of the nucleant still at the flight level <br />where it drifted downwind and may have been involved directly in <br />other cloud-building areas. <br /> <br />In short, the distinctive differences between the ARIDROP and Cata- <br />lina treatments invalidate the inference that apparent rainfall <br />decreases associated with the latter should apply also to the former. <br />This distinction applies alike to effects within the intended target <br />area and to wide-area effects downwind from it. <br /> <br />The Flagstaff Experiment <br /> <br />The Flagstaff experiments, conducted from 1965 through 1970 under the <br />sponsorship of Project Skywater, were more than any others the source <br />of the technology applied in ARIDROP. In his paragraph referring to <br />this program, Osborn presents his third grounds, questioning use of <br />radar observations to estimate rainfall, the pertinence of the model <br /> <br />8 <br />