2016
DOI: 10.5194/tc-10-2347-2016
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bias corrections of precipitation measurements across experimental sites in different ecoclimatic regions of western Canada

Abstract: Abstract. This study assesses a filtering procedure on accumulating precipitation gauge measurements and quantifies the effects of bias corrections for wind-induced undercatch across four ecoclimatic regions in western Canada, including the permafrost regions of the subarctic, the Western Cordillera, the boreal forest, and the prairies. The bias corrections increased monthly precipitation by up to 163 % at windy sites with short vegetation and sometimes modified the seasonal precipitation regime, whereas the i… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
73
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
3
73
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Three types of biases were found in the Geonor observations, similarly to previous studies (Harder and Pomeroy, 2013;and Pan et al, 2016): (1) field servicing (i.e., emptying and/or adding of antifreeze and oil to the Geonor bucket); (2) jitters and diurnal noise due to wind speed (e.g., MZA) and changes in temperature are similar to those found in sites with strong diurnal changes in temperature, radiation, and wind speed (e.g., Harder and Pomeroy 2013;Pan et al, 2016); and (3) long-term drift results from evaporation within the bucket, which occurs at the end of snow season, when air temperature is high. We post-processed the raw precipitation data using a supervised correction similar to the one described in Harder and Pomeroy (2013) by performing the following steps.…”
Section: Correcting For Geonor Undercatchsupporting
confidence: 71%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Three types of biases were found in the Geonor observations, similarly to previous studies (Harder and Pomeroy, 2013;and Pan et al, 2016): (1) field servicing (i.e., emptying and/or adding of antifreeze and oil to the Geonor bucket); (2) jitters and diurnal noise due to wind speed (e.g., MZA) and changes in temperature are similar to those found in sites with strong diurnal changes in temperature, radiation, and wind speed (e.g., Harder and Pomeroy 2013;Pan et al, 2016); and (3) long-term drift results from evaporation within the bucket, which occurs at the end of snow season, when air temperature is high. We post-processed the raw precipitation data using a supervised correction similar to the one described in Harder and Pomeroy (2013) by performing the following steps.…”
Section: Correcting For Geonor Undercatchsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…The collection efficiency of precipitation gauges is influenced by the wind speed and a bias adjustment for solid precipitation is needed under windy conditions Buisán et al, 2017;Smith et al, 2017;Pan et al, 2016). Measurement errors due to gauge undercatch frequently range between 20 and 50 % .…”
Section: Correcting For Geonor Undercatchmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Recent advances in remotely sensed soil moisture, such as the ground-based cosmic ray neutron probe (Zreda et al, 2008) or satellite-based sensors such as those used by the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission (Kerr et al, 2010) or the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission (Entekhabi et al, 2010), can retrieve soil moisture estimates over hundreds of metres to tens of kilometres. However, these observations are limited to the near surface, and need to be depth-scaled to the root zone to be suitable for water balance studies (Peterson et al, 2016). Adequately capturing field-scale variability using point-scale measurement techniques requires a large number of samples (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent results of the Solid Precipitation Intercomparison Experiment (SPICE; Nitu et al, 2012) reveal that these errors still exist in standard meteorological measurements (e.g. Buisán et al, 2016;Pan et al, 2016). Many snow cover models calculate HN from HNW at sub-daily time intervals, although reliable HNW input data are difficult to obtain (Egli et al, 2009), and thus the new snow density is needed in equal temporal resolution to convert between HNW and HN (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%