Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 697

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Well Are We Measuring Snow: The NOAA/FAA/NCAR Winter Precipitation Test Bed

Open access
Rasmussen, Roy, Baker, Bruce, Kochendorfer, John, Meyers, Tilden, Landolt, Scott, Fischer, Alexandre P., Black, Jenny, Thériault, Julie M., Kucera, Paul, Gochis, David, Smith, Craig, Nitu, Rodica, Hall, Mark, Ikeda, Kyoko, Gutmann, Ethan·2012·Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Abstract

NOAA, FAA, and NCAR work together at the NCAR Marshall Field Site to understand the relative accuracies of different instrumentation, gauges, and windshield configurations to measure snowfall and other solid precipitation. MotivAtion: AviAtion And CliMAte needs.Precipitation is one of the most important atmospheric variables for ecosystem research, hydrologic and weather forecasting, and climate monitoring.Despite its importance, accurate measurement of precipitation remains challenging.Measurement errors for solid precipitation, which are often ignored for automated systems, frequently range from 20% to 50% due to undercatch in windy conditions.Although measurement accuracy can be difficult to obtain and quantify for precipitation, it is extremely important for monitoring and assessing climate variability and change.Reducing measurement uncertainties is essential given the projected increases in precipitation over land over the next 100 yr (IPCC 2007).Obtaining climate-quality precipitation data not only requires overlap with existing measurements but also necessitates an ongoing need for intercomparisons and tests of various gauge windshield configurations.Undercatch of precipitation (Groisman and Legates 1994), resulting from wind-induced updrafts at the gauge orifice and wetting losses on the internal walls of the gauge, significantly affects the quality and accuracy of precipitation data for climate change studies, and is especially relevant for solid precipitation (Goodison et al. 1998).Recent collocated snow measurements at the Environment Canada (EC) Centre for Atmospheric Research Experiments (CARE) near Egbert, Ontario, Canada, highlight the large variability in the total snow water equivalent HOw wELL ARE wE MEASuRINg SNOw?

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 · 10.1175/bams-d-11-00052.1

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 697

Metadata

Authors
Rasmussen, R., Baker, B., Kochendorfer, J., Meyers, T., Landolt, S., Fischer, A. P., Black, J., Thériault, J. M., Kucera, P., Gochis, D., Smith, C., Nitu, R., Hall, M., Ikeda, K., & Gutmann, E.
Venue
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Published
2012-06
Volume
93
Issue
6
Pages
811-829
ISSN
  • 0003-0007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0477
OpenAlex
W2142416245
Cited by
697
References
12
FWCI
10.48
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: How Well Are We Measuring Snow: The NOAA/FAA/NCAR Winter Precipitation Test Bed. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/bams-d-11-00052.1
The paper
Rasmussen, R., Baker, B., Kochendorfer, J., Meyers, T., Landolt, S., Fischer, A. P., Black, J., Thériault, J. M., Kucera, P., Gochis, D., Smith, C., Nitu, R., Hall, M., Ikeda, K., & Gutmann, E. (2012). How Well Are We Measuring Snow: The NOAA/FAA/NCAR Winter Precipitation Test Bed. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-11-00052.1

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.