Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the Bureau projects, was sponsored by the National Science Foun- <br /> <br />dation. Each of the proj ects had di fferlent topography, clima- <br /> <br />tology, opportunity recognition criteria, treatment procedures, <br />and evaluation techniques. Figure 1 shmvs the location of the <br />seven projects and table 1 lists the projects, their sites, and <br />their period of seeding operations. <br /> <br />Appendix A presents descriptions of each of the seven projects, <br /> <br />a discussion of the operating procedures, and the results reported <br /> <br />by the projects' principal investigators. <br /> <br />Comparison of the results from each proj ect shows that very few <br /> <br />generalized criteria may be stated without further analysis. Two <br /> <br />generalizations that are consistent among projects are: (1) pos- <br /> <br /> <br />itive seeding effects occurred for warm, moist clouds, and (2) neg- <br /> <br /> <br />ative seeding effects occurred for cold, dry clouds. The most <br /> <br /> <br />critical shortcoming of these criteria is that they are not defined <br />by a consistent range of temperature, moisture, stability, and/or <br />wind speed. This is due to the inherent differences in the defi- <br /> <br /> <br />nition of the variables from project to project and the changing: <br /> <br /> <br />and sometimes contradictory objectives of the projects. These <br /> <br /> <br />arguments provide additional support foT' conducting a generalize,d <br /> <br /> <br />seedability analysis. <br /> <br />9 <br />