Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 16 of 16 items for :

  • Langmuir circulation x
  • Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All
R. J. Pilié, E. J. Mack, W. C. Kocmond, W. J. Eadie, and C. W. Rogers

of error in these measurements are statistical innature, imposed by the time required t? measure largernumbers of replicas for each distribution. These errorsare particularly important for small droplet size~(<3/~m radius) where the number of replicateddroplets is limited by small collection efficiencies and,consequently, collection efficiency corrections are large(Langmuir and Blodgett, 1946). Similar problems occurfor large drop sizes where natural concentrations aresmall. A second type of

Full access
Jindra Goodman

corrections(Langmuir and Blodgett, 1946). For the larger dropletsthe errors arise due to the small sampling volume.Droplet samples were taken every 60-90 min at severallevels to obtain the variation with time of the sizedistribution in the vertical.The drop size distribution was found to be a functionof vertical distance from the inversion base. Typically,the mean and median diameter increased with height,as shown in Figs. 4-6. The selected microscopic photo-graphs taken on 27 July 1974 (Fig. 7) further

Full access
William L. Woodley, Thomas J. Henderson, Bernard Vonnegut, Glenn Gordon, Robert Breidenthal, and Shirley M. Holle

icecrystals (Langmuir et al. 1948; Vonnegut 1948; GeneralElectric 1952; Ludlam 1956; Havens et al. 1981 ) duringan airplane's penetration of a supercooled cloud. Thisidea did not, however, receive much discussion in theopen literature and at scientific conferences, nor weresuch effects the subject of much research.14691470 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY VOLUME30 In recent years, Rangno and Hobbs (1983, 1984)have direct

Full access
H. H. Jonsson and B. Vonnegut

conductivityare proportionately smaller than in the other cases, andin the case of the shower, the highest conductivifiesare seen to occur towards its end. It is difficult to explainwhy these two storms are so different from the others.Throughout their duration it appears as if pollutionwas making its way into the precipitation. It is possiblethat this contamination was taking place locally dueto a source somewhere upwind, but it may also bespeculated that perhaps the circulations in these stormswere

Full access
Kenneth V. Beard and Harry T. Ochs III

,~rcontents within adiabatic cores would assure that sufficient water was distributed in droplet sizes necessa~3,for rapid accretion by coalescence nuclei. In mixed regions of warm-based continental convection, larger cloud droplets should also result fromfavorable condensation trajectories. Since such largedroplets grow by coalescence, some may be transporte..dinto updrafts by large eddy circulations in updraf.:downdraft shear zones (see Rauber et al. 1991 ), wherethey would grow more rapidly and perhaps

Full access
Alan M. Blyth

thermalsascending directly through remnants of their predecessors, rather than upshear of them, is never observedin the real atmosphere. Time-lapse photographs of NewMexican cumuli developing over Langmuir Laboratorysupport the reply of Jonas and Mason (1983), whichdisputes this claim. Telford and Chai also argued thata mixing rate proportional to vertical velocity is unrealistic since clouds mix substantially once they cometo rest at their maximum height. Furthermore, theysuggested that when parcels dwell at

Full access