Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />SECTION VII <br />CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />A. Overall Activity <br /> <br />The first two weeks of the project, as usual, were filled <br />with activity... not so much with seedable clouds as with equipment <br />installation and checkouts. When cloud patterns became favorable <br />in late May, seeding activity increased and remained very active <br />through June, July and August. Unlike the normal patterns for <br />Western Kansas, storm activity did not taper off during late summer. <br />Instead, it remained high through the end of August. <br /> <br />As shown in Table 2, there was considerably more seeding <br />activity in the overall 1978-79 seasons than in the previous Muddy <br />Road seasons. There were two factors which accounted for this <br />increased operation. . . nighttime seeding and the fact that with <br />"on-top" seeding the aircraft could cover more of the project area <br />than the same number of cloud base seeders. <br /> <br />Every sector of the Muddy Road V Project area had, at one <br />time or another" been-exposed to severe storms which had potential <br />for hail damage. Fortunately, with the benefit of the on-top seeder <br />aircraft, most of the threatening hail storms were adequately treated. <br /> <br />B. Conclusions <br /> <br />Evaluation of cloud seeding results is generally recognized <br />as one of the very important aspects of weather modification. <br />Because the data analysis and evaluation processes are time con- <br />suming and costly, a quantitative assessment of the season's <br /> <br />25 <br />