Laserfiche WebLink
<br />all storms can be eliminated. Although definite improvements in <br />Muddy Road equipment and operating procedures were made, it- is <br />recognized that there are problems remaining which are a source <br />of limitation in hail suppression operations. <br /> <br />In efforts to continue improving the effectiveness of the <br />Muddy Road cloud seeding, it is important to identify problem areas. <br />This was done in Section V, paragraphs D and E, with the obvious <br />conclusion that further improvements in seeding coverage can be <br />made by: <br /> <br />faster aircraft response time <br />reduction of equipment malfunctions <br />earlier identification of storms which have hail <br />potential <br />maintaining air and ground equipment at constant <br />readiness <br /> <br />D. Other Observations and Recommendations <br /> <br />Brief comments and conclusions which emerged during Muddy <br />Road IV a~e listed here for the benefit of future programs: <br /> <br />1. The computer cloud models were useful tools in making <br />seeding decisions. A recognized feature of the convective cloud models <br />is that they ?verestimate the potential forhail formation. In the case <br />of rain augmentation they also showed a potential for rain increase <br />- +. -- _. <br />more frequently than was actually experienced. One prominent feature <br />of the models (the CPCM and the CIC Steady State) noted in Muddy Road <br />IV was that when their calculations showed no potential for rain <br />increase, the clouds indeed failed to respond to seeding. <br /> <br />32 <br />