|
<br />Achtemeier, G. L., S. A. Changnon, G. L. Dzurisin, A. R Jameson, D. B. Johnson, P. Kennedy, and
<br />R C. Semonin, 1983: Pre-experimental studies during 1980-1982 for Precipitation Augmentation for
<br />Crops Experiment. Final Report, NOAA Contract NA80RACOOO72. Illinois State Water Survey,
<br />Champaign, IL, 480 pp.
<br />
<br />No abstract.
<br />
<br />Achtemeier, G" L., S. A. Changnon, G. L. Dzurisin, A. R Jameson, D. B. Johnson, and R. C. Semonin, 1980:
<br />Precipitation Augmentation for Crops Experiment (PACE)-Pre-experiment studies. Final Report,
<br />NOAA Contract NA79RACOI14. Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL, 121 pp.
<br />
<br />No abstract.
<br />
<br />Ackennan, B., and N. E. Westcott, 1986: Midwestern convective clouds; A review. Journal of Weather
<br />Modification, 18:87-94.
<br />
<br />Studies of Midwestern convective clouds and precipitation spanning some 40 years have contributed
<br />infonnation addressing many aspects of weather modification experimentation and operation. In this
<br />paper, we have focused on the studies which provide insight into the microphysical and dynamical
<br />characteristics of these clouds, with a view toward assessing the state of our current knowledge and
<br />providing the infonnation base needed for the development of physical hypotheses for natural and
<br />modified cloud behavior and for design of future experimentation.
<br />
<br />Ackennan, B., S. A. Changnon, P. Garcia, S. Gould-Stewart, S. E. Hollinger, F. Huff, C.-F. Hsu, A. Jameson,
<br />S. Kidder, S. Offutt, M. Pinar, K. Sigh, and N. E. Westcott, 1985: Precipitation Augmentation for
<br />Crops Experiment. SWS Report 365, Annual Report to National Oceanic and Atmospheric
<br />Administration, May 1984-ApriI1985. Illinois State Water Survey, Champaign, IL, 171 pp.
<br />+ appendices (available from National Technical Infonnation Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield,
<br />VA 22161).
<br />
<br />No abstract.
<br />
<br />Ackennan, B., and R-Y. Sun, 1985: Predictions of two one-dimensional cloud models: A comparison.
<br />Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, 24:617-628.
<br />
<br />Two one-dimensional steady-state models of cumulus convection in common use in weather
<br />modification research, the NOAA Experimental Meteorology Branch model (EMB) and the Great Plains
<br />Cumulus Model (GPCM), differ in their fonnulations in several ways. Some of the differences arise
<br />from the conceptualization of the convective phenomenon which is modeled in each and some from the
<br />physical parameterizations utilized. Predictions of cloud top and dynamic modification potential
<br />(seedability) by the two models for 57 midday radiosondes in the Midwest, differed significantly, with
<br />the EMB values consistently higher. GPCM simulations provided a better overall estimate of observed
<br />radar echo tops, while EMB consistently overestimated, by largest amounts when tops were below
<br />12 km. Study of the impact of te!Tlporal and/or spatial separation between sounding and cloud area
<br />emphasizes the need, in the Midwest, to consider factors other than thennodynamic stratification
<br />(e.g., forced lifting, convergence) on the synoptic and mesoscale when applying the model for prediction
<br />of cloud development. However, it was also found that the average difference in predictions by the two
<br />models, for the same sounding, was of the same order as the average difference in predictions arising
<br />from spatial or temporal separation.
<br />
<br />12
<br />
|