Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />