<br />JL
<br />
<br />'2
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />As was clearly pointed out by Flueck, the partitioning
<br />.was arrived at ex post facto, subjecting the results to
<br />criticisms of multiplicity (Tukey 1977). Remember that
<br />we do not base our conclusions about Whitetop on a few
<br />selected tests of significance, but rather on the overall
<br />structure of the data when viewed against a framework of
<br />the physical processes involved. Interested readers are
<br />urged to consult Flueck (1971) for full details of these data
<br />and conclusions drawn from them.
<br />Based on differences between target and control areas
<br />on seed and not-seed days, the overall effect of seeding
<br />in Whitetop was a decrease in both rain and radar echo
<br />cover. The largest decreases appeared in the five hours
<br />I
<br />following seeding. Statistical support for decreases in
<br />rain' was very weak; for decreases in echo cover, the
<br />support was moderate to strong, especially in the post-
<br />seeding hours.
<br />The apparent seeding effect was found to vary with
<br />the maximum heights of clouds on any given day. On
<br />days with maximum echo tops below 20,000 feet, about
<br />-lOoC, seeding effects were negative but with little or
<br />no statistical support. On days when maximum echoes
<br />were between 20,000 and 40,000 feet in height, the target-
<br />control differences indicate positive treatment effects of
<br />+38 to +57 percent in echo with weak support, and
<br />+68 to + 100 percent in rain with strong support. On 85
<br />days when echo tops exceeded 40,000 feet (about -400C),
<br />the indicated seeding effects were strongly negative with
<br />very strong statistical support. On these "tall echo" days,
<br />the largest apparent negative seeding effects and the
<br />strongest statistical support occurred near the seeding
<br />line during seeding hours and 70-110 miles downwind
<br />of the seeding line during post-seeding hours. Since days
<br />with these very tall echoes dominate the rainfall pattern
<br />in southern MissoUri in summer, they overbalanced the
<br />positive effects indicated for days with medium-height
<br />echoes.
<br />Two other physically meaningful partitions are total
<br />number of burner hours and mean wind speed, both of
<br />which give indications of the magnitude of treatmeD:t.
<br />Days with 20 or fewer burner hours (indicative of weak
<br />treatment) gave mixed treatment effects without sta-
<br />tistical support. But on 148 days on which we came close
<br />to the programmed level of 36 burner hours, the seeding
<br />effect was strongly negative, with strong support in echo
<br />and weak support in rain. Note the steady progression
<br />from positive to negative effects in echo with increasing
<br />nmriber of burner hours. Flueck (1971) showed that this
<br />inverse relation between precipitation and burner hours
<br />was restricted to the target area. I
<br />D~ys with winds greater than 24 knots (indicative of
<br />strong dilution) gave positive seeding effects, while on
<br />days with slower winds (less dilution), the effects were
<br />mainly negative. During post-seeding hours, when verti-
<br />cal mixing of the seeding materials should have reached
<br />its maximum, the seeding effects were directly propor-
<br />tional to wind speed: for rain, -92 percent for WS S 12
<br />knots, -60 percent for 12 < WS S 24 knots, and +38
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />~ ...
<br />
<br />Journal of the American Statistical Association, March 1979
<br />
<br />percent for W S > 24 knots; for echo cover, corresponding
<br />valu.es were -50 percent, -145 percent, and +6 percent.
<br />Statistical support for these values is weak but generally
<br />consistent. Flueck also showed that large rainfall de-
<br />creases were associated with days with southerly winds,
<br />while rain increases came on days with west winds. He
<br />reported little evidence for changes in the frequencies of
<br />precipitation except on west-wind days, where it in-
<br />creased (about +20 percent) and on south-wind days,
<br />where it decreased (about -40 percent).
<br />One aspect of Whitetop which has received considerable
<br />attention is the fact that both target and control areas
<br />received substantially less rain on days we seeded than
<br />on days we did not seed. This happened in four of the five
<br />years. For the experiment as a whole and for individual
<br />years, except for 1962, the statistical support for this
<br />being due to anything but chance is very weak. Some of
<br />the post-factum partitions showed SINS differences in
<br />both target and control areas with considerable statistical
<br />strength.
<br />These statistical findings are to be viewed in the con-
<br />text of several results from the physical studies: (1) the
<br />unseeded clouds in Whitetop were found to have sur-
<br />prisingly high concentrations of natural ice crystals, fre-
<br />quently entirely adequate for effective precipitation
<br />formation, and occurring at temperatures warmer than .
<br />the threshold of AgI nucleation (Koenig 1963; Braham
<br />1964); (2) our AgI nuclei, which we released high in the
<br />subcloud layer, mixed vertically much more slowly than
<br />we had anticipated, and were barely detectable at the
<br />surff~ce at distances of 30-40 miles from the seeding line
<br />(Bourquard 1963); (3) cumulus cloud studies by other
<br />groups have shown that most of the air passing up through
<br />the base of a cumulus cloud comes from fairly close to the
<br />surfB~ce, while relatively little comes from high in the
<br />subcloud layer (Marwitz 1973); (4) application of the
<br />Simpson-Wiggert (1969) model of cumulus cloud dy-
<br />namics to the 6 A.M. upper air temperature and moisture
<br />data predicted maximum heights of unseeded clouds on
<br />seeded days to be about 3,000 feet lower than on not-
<br />seeded days. Actual radar measurements showed maxi-
<br />mum echo heights on seeded days to be about 3,000 feet
<br />higher than on not-seeded days (Braham, McCarthy,
<br />and Flueck 1971).
<br />The results of these physical studies, plus the fact that
<br />we seeded with a heavy dosage rate in the upper part of
<br />thesubcloud region, can be combined with Flueck's
<br />analyses to give the following picture of Whitetop results:
<br />
<br />1. Large clouds, because of their ability to stir the
<br />boundary layer by cloud-induced local circulations, most
<br />likely were overseeded, except during periods of high
<br />winds and/or low burner hours, which would act to
<br />reduce the AgI concentrations in the plume. (Recall our
<br />finding that many clouds of this region contained un-
<br />expectedly high concentrations of natural crystals.) The
<br />very large negative seeding effects on days with echo
<br />tops over 40,000 feet are consistent with findings of mQre
<br />
<br />",-,'141:.......:.<:.
<br />
|