Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Adjustment of daily precipitation data at 10 climate stations in Alaska: Application of World Meteorological Organization intercomparison results

Open access
Yang, Daqing, Goodison, Barry E., Ishida, Shig, Benson, Carl S.·1998·Water Resources Research

Abstract

A methodology for adjusting the daily precipitation measured by the U.S. National Weather Service (NWS) 8‐inch standard gauge for wind‐induced undercatch, wetting loss, and trace amount of precipitation is provided. The application of the proposed adjustment procedures was made at 10 NWS climate stations in Alaska for 1982 and 1983. The results show the following: (1) Daily adjustment for wind‐induced undercatch, wetting loss, and trace amount of precipitation increases the gauge‐measured annual precipitation by 65–800 mm for the 2 years (about 10‐140% of the gauge‐measured yearly total) at the 10 stations in Alaska; (2) compared to wetting loss and trace amount of precipitation, wind‐induced undercatch is the source of greatest error, although wetting loss and trace amount of precipitation are also significant systematic errors in the northern Alaska regions of low precipitation; (3) in the similar climate condition, the NWS 8‐inch standard gauges with an Alter wind shield have a much lower adjustment for wind‐induced undercatch than the unshielded gauges at nearby stations, and the unshielded gauges placed on the roof of the weather office building have a higher adjustment for wind‐induced errors than those gauges mounted on the ground; (4) monthly adjustment factors (adjusted/measured precipitation) differ by station, and at an individual station by type of precipitation; (5) considerable intra‐annual variation of the magnitude of the adjustments has been found in Alaska owing to the fluctuation of wind speed, air temperature, and frequency of snowfall. Using the constant correction factors (derived at a single intercomparison site) to the archived monthly precipitation records produces significant undercorrection of the wind‐induced errors at high wind sites and overcorrecting of the errors at low wind sites. To avoid the undercorrection or overcorrection of the wind‐induced errors, a constant correction factor should not be applied to gauge‐measured snow data. Daily adjustments for systematic errors need to be applied to the archived precipitation data. It is expected that the adjustments will have an impact on climate monitoring.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/97wr02681

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 162

Metadata

Authors
Yang, D., Goodison, B. E., Ishida, S., & Benson, C. S.
Venue
Water Resources Research
Published
1998-02
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
241-256
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
OpenAlex
W2001057033
Cited by
162
References
0
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Adjustment of daily precipitation data at 10 climate stations in Alaska: Application of World Meteorological Organization intercomparison results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/97wr02681
The paper
Yang, D., Goodison, B. E., Ishida, S., & Benson, C. S. (1998). Adjustment of daily precipitation data at 10 climate stations in Alaska: Application of World Meteorological Organization intercomparison results. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/97wr02681

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.