Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CHAPTER IV <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />The results of the analysis of the climatological data <br />led to the conclusion that there was no apparent increase <br />in precipitation as a res lIt of cloud seeding over north <br />central Colorado for the period of i1arch 1, 1951, to <br />June 1, 1951. <br /> <br />The above conclusion is supnorted by the following <br />results of the analysis: <br /> <br />1. The mean depth of precipitation on the target area <br />during the seeding perlod was less than normal and has been <br />equaled or exceeded naturally every two years out of three for <br />the past forty years. <br /> <br />2. The precipitation on the areas to the east and west <br />of the seeded area was above normal durinG the cloud-seeding <br />period. A conclusion that the natural precipitation on the <br />target area would have been significantly less than that <br />which actually fell is held to be unlikely. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />3. The mean depth of precipitation, as a percent of <br />normal, on the control area for E.?:rch, 1951, was approximately <br />equal to the mean depth of precipitation, as a percent of <br />normal, on the target area for Harch, 1951. This does not <br />indicate any increase in precipitation on the target area <br />due to cloud seeding. The a.)proximation of equality was <br />used, although the control area was ten percent higher than <br />the target area, because a difference of this magnitude <br />observed for only one period is not considered significant, <br />either as to the degree or the cause. <br /> <br />4. The mean depth of snow-water content increase, as a <br />percent of normal, on the control area for the period of <br />March and April, 1951,was approximately equal to the mean <br />depth of snow.water content increase, as a percent of normal, <br />on the target area for the same period. This does not <br />ind:l.cate any significant increase in snow pacle in the target <br />area due to cloud seeding. Again, the approximation of <br />equality was used, although the target area was eleven percent <br />higher than the control area, because such a small difference <br />was not considered significant in view of the short period <br />considered. If such a difference were maintained consistently <br />over a long period of years under similar teMperature con- <br />ditions, then the question would arise as to the cause. The <br />mean depths of snow-water content increase on both the <br />control and target area were above normal for the period of <br />March and April, 1951, but the greater than normal increase <br />for both areas was due, in part at least, to the below normal <br />monthly temperatures and resulting decreased snow melt for <br />the sarne period. <br /> <br />~'\ <br />"L<:) <br />,-", <br /> <br />8 <br />