Search Results

You are looking at 41 - 50 of 68 items for

  • Author or Editor: Charles F. Brooks x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
CHARLES F. BROOKS

Abstract

By means of data collected from numerous sources relative to meteorological phenomena observed in flying, an attempt is made in this paper to explain on a scientific basis, for the benefit of the aviator, the phenomena he has observed, and at the same time to gather from these experiences such facts as are of value to the meteorologist in amplifying his knowledge of what actually exists in the upper air.

The disturbances of the air due to daytime convection are one of the prime sources of bumpiness. Especially on hot summer days do strong, rapidly rising currents of air penetrate to great altitudes and, where encountered, jolt the aeroplane. Where the cooler air is descending, the effect is similar to that of falling into a “hole.” The height to which the effects of surface roughness extend when the wind is blowing depends upon the speed of the surface wind and the height, of the obstruction.

In the free air, aviators' observations show how the layers of air flow over one another, the interface sometimes being marked by clouds and sometimes entirely invisible. At such levels are encountered billows or waves, and considerable difficulty is sometimes experienced in flying through such regions. Clouds, rain, and fog all contribute to the discomfort and danger of flying.

Perhaps the most interesting are the experiences in the thunder-storm and the up-and-down winds which accompany such storms. As the driving wedge of cold air at the surface advances ahead of the storm, the air into which the storm is moving is forced upward. The maximum turbulence is found in the region of the squall cloud, but the force of the rising air ahead of the storm is sufficient to carry up airplanes considerably, in spite of the efforts of the pilots to keep the nose of the plane down. The dangers from lightning and hail, are also quite as important as those from the capricious winds.

Full access
CHARLES F. BROOKS

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Full access
Charles F. Brooks
Full access
CHARLES F. BROOKS

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Full access
CHARLES F. BROOKS

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Full access
CHARLES F. BROOKS

Abstract

SYNOPSIS

Whereas in current practice in the United States, select is that form of precipitation which is not snow, rain, or hail, an attempt to make a detailed descriptive and genetic definition seems advisable, and 30 cases of sleet are analyzed as a basis:

Select, a rattling type of ice precipitation formed in the free air, has the following characteristics: Size, smallest dimensions of largest pieces less than 6 mm. (¼ inch); form, angular, irregular, or nearly spherical; structure, nonregular ice part or all of which is cloudy or bubbly (except in extremely small drops), not more than one clear layer.

A select particle may be (1) a snowflake partly melted and refrozen. (2) a frozen raindrop, or (3) a frozen combination of snowflake, and raindrop or liquid (not undercooled) cloud droplets.

A generalized vertical section of sleet weather shows select as occurring usually with a cloud from which snow is falling through a stratum of air having a temperature above freezing and into air with a temperature below freezing.

Full access
CHARLES F. BROOKS

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Full access
Charles F. Brooks
Full access
CHARLES F. BROOKS

Abstract

No Abstract Available.

Full access
CHARLES F. BROOKS

Abstract

SYNOPSIS

Long-range forecasts are so much desired that any number of unqualified persons issue them without regard for criteria of performance. Among what might be called “fake” forecasts are the almanac, astrological, pseudosolar, and “mathematical” sorts, many of them calamity howls. The “prediction” of climatic normals, forecasts from phenomena on certain dates and from the behavior or aspects of certain animals or plants also belong in this category.

To be of value a forecast must be specific, limited as to place and time, and it must have a probability of more than chance verification. Furthermore, the economic consequences of failures, both in the long run and in a small sequence of years, must be reckoned. A forecast that will not hit the mark four times out of five, or at least once out of every three in succession, can not be of much value, though some claim that a forecast verified only three times out of five would be useful. The uncertainties of meteorological relationships on which any long-range forecasts can now be based are generally too great to permit reputable meteorologists to forecast on expectations of less than 75 or 80 per cent verification. A critical study of the methods now used in the attempts at scientific long-range weather forecasting and an evaluation of their relative merits for different parts of the world is much needed.

Full access