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 />Implementation of dyiIamic seeding techniques at <br />or near cloud top gave better storm coverage and response to <br />seeding. <br /> <br />Addition of rawinsonde equipment to make local <br />soundings provided more representative data for use in the computer <br />cloud models. <br /> <br />Addition of two meteorological technicians enabled <br />more extensive collection of data for later analysis. <br /> <br />A very significant conclusion which can be drawn from pre- <br />liminary Muddy Road analysis is that when any threatening storm was <br />seeded at the proper time and with the proper ice nuclei concentration, <br />it did not produce damaging hail at the ground. Conversely, when <br />hailstones of damaging size were reported at ground level, the storms <br />which produced the hail were not properly seeded. The Muddy Road <br />project is not alone in this respect. Operating data from many other <br />U. S. and foreign projects show a similar pattern. <br /> <br />From the above statement, it is clear that the primary <br />challenges in hail suppression operations today related to the identifi- <br />cation of hail threats; and then the timely treatment of the potential <br />hail producing storm with adequate ice nuclei concentrations. <br /> <br />C. Problem Analysis <br /> <br />Like many aspects of the agriculture industry, hail suppres- <br />sion operations are not perfect. In retrospect, the few storm episodes <br />which inflicted crop damage stand out most vividly. Experience in <br />Muddy Road and other hail suppression operations indicates that with <br />the present state-of-the-art, it is not likely that all the hail from <br />all storms can be eliminated. Although definite improvements in <br /> <br />27 <br />