My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WMOD00509
CWCB
>
Weather Modification
>
DayForward
>
WMOD00509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2009 2:40:26 PM
Creation date
4/24/2008 2:49:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Weather Modification
Title
Physics of Winter Orographic Precipitation and it's Modification - Summary of Presentations
Date
10/1/1985
Weather Modification - Doc Type
Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />3. Some characteristics of the storms <br /> <br />The following summarize some results from the physical <br />studies, as reported in Hobbs et ale {1975}, Marwitz {1980}, <br />Cooper and Saunders {1980}, and Cooper and Marwitz {1980}: <br />~ Ice concentrations were freauently hiqh. generally <br />much higher than could be explained by nucleation or known <br />ice multiplication mechanisms. About half of the cloud <br />regions examined by the aircraft had ice concentrations <br />>20/L. The major exceptions were the cases of cumulus clouds <br />or regions of embedded convection. <br />~ Liauid water contents were relativelY low, <br />especially in areas far enough upwind of the barrier to <br />appear "seedable". Typical maximum liquid water contents <br />encountered over at least 1 km were ~0.1 g/m3 {stable}, 0.3 <br />g/m3 {neutral}, and >0.5 g/m3 {unstable stage}. <br />~ Storms evolved from stable to unstable stages, and <br />liquid water contents increased during this evolution. <br />~ The stability was best characterized Qy potential <br />or convective instability. not conditional stability. It was <br />often the case that these two measures of stability were out <br />of phase. Early storm stages were often periods of high <br />conditional stability, but because of the absence of a <br />surface heat source or other means to release the instability <br />and because the low-level flow was often parallel to or away <br />from the barrier, this instability was not released. Such <br />periods were generally characterized by potential stability. <br />Conversely, the later storm periods were generally periods <br />when potential instability could be released because of <br />airflow toward the mountain and associated lifting, but it <br />was common that such layers were conditionally stable upwind <br />of the barrier. This has led to much confusion in the <br />differing claims of different groups: Elliott et ale {1978} <br />used a parameter based on conditional instability, as did <br />Hjermstad {1975}, while Marwitz {1980} used potential <br />instability. <br />~ Precipitation mechanisms in the storm chanqed from <br />predominantly diffusional growth in the early stable stage to <br />mixed diffusional and accretional growth in the later <br />unstable stages. <br /> <br />4. Considerations of seedability <br /> <br />Cooper and Marwitz {1980} considered the seedability of <br />these storms in relationship to the needs for a practical <br />seeding experiment. Supercooled water is needed in an area <br />where it can be converted to precipitation falling on a <br />desirable target, in meaningful amounts, and there should be <br />a way to recognize and/or forecast seedable conditions if <br />they are limited. supporting evidence for seedability is the <br /> <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.