renee’ “ : ~ Maj. Gen. P. W. Clarkson, Commander, JIF-7 _ 25 November 1953 0120578 &. C. Graves ; COMMENTS ON THE WEATHER STUDY BY CDR. ELBERT W. PATE AXD¥fkoresuURUS ATOMIC ENERGY CLARENCE EB. PAIMER DATED 30 JUNE 1953 COMMISSION. J- 22 (87 Location Fi Collectionede Gey -C2 OFF Folder brk- PiNnsy leet, BA The subject report states conclusions which are not properly qualified, and others which cannot be made on the basis of experientethe operations of JIF-132. 7 “1. The following comments are intended to supplement the conclusions of the pubject report by specifying those conclusions which are not appropriate to Task Force experience and by giving sufficient qualification to the remaining conclusions to avoid misleading those who might have occasion to refer to the report. In view of this intent, it is requested that consideration be given to ‘the attachment of this menmorandun, with enclosure, to the subject report. 1. The title page indicates that the report is a joint effort of Cdr. Pate and Professor Palmer. This is not the case. Professor Palmer wrote part of Chapters 1 end 2 of the report, Chapters 3 and 4, and the Abstract and Conclusions were written by Cdr. Pate, and the combined report wag not given to Palmer for review prior to issuance. A memorandum from Professor Palmer which clarifies the portion of the paper for which he accepts responsibility is enclosed. 2. The conclusion that “casual statistical analysis of the available weather records leads more often than not to erroneous operational conclusions” is obviously true. It is assumed, however, that this conclusion is not imtended to imply that operational conclusipns of Joint Task Forces engaged in the conduct of atomic tests vere based on casual statistical analysis of available weather records. The fact that a reasonable number of operations have been brought to a successful conclusion without undue postponenents or delsys because of weather seems to m to be a sufficient inféication that operational conclusions have, in general, been sound. ° . 3. The conclusion that "operational weather requirenents have been imposed . . . which are inherently inconsistent, almost mitually exclusive and capable of realiration only for short periods separated by long intervals" 4s incompatible with the facta since the majority of overseas iED/DOE RC detonations have occurred on target dates selected months in advance, and eince postponencnts because of weather have never amounted to more then @ few days. It seems probable that the Task Force Weather Officer was not familiar with the real operational weather requirements of the Tesk Force. fhe latter conclusion is supported by the misstatement of requirements on - past operations appearing in Bection 3 on Page 8. D CLASSIFICATION CANCELLE meme teins EERtac= ee ges ATE,Faeoo) hae F erateEPERN Pipa To ze Sets AS surataerateae ox Pree oe Ta Saag Ay a im 7 areSeater eee COPItn nae BY AUTHORITY OF DOE/OG vo L t For example, there has _.