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
_.