Inconsistency in precipitation measurements across the Alaska–Yukon border
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract. This study quantifies the inconsistency in gauge precipitation observations across the border of Alaska and Yukon. It analyses the precipitation measurements by the national standard gauges (National Weather Service (NWS) 8 in. gauge and Nipher gauge) and the bias-corrected data to account for wind effect on the gauge catch, wetting loss and trace events. The bias corrections show a significant amount of errors in the gauge records due to the windy and cold environment in the northern areas of Alaska and Yukon. Monthly corrections increase solid precipitation by 136 % in January and 20 % for July at the Barter Island in Alaska, and about 31 % for January and 4 % for July at the Yukon stations. Regression analyses of the monthly precipitation data show a stronger correlation for the warm months (mainly rainfall) than for cold month (mainly snowfall) between the station pairs, and small changes in the precipitation relationship due to the bias corrections. Double mass curves also indicate changes in the cumulative precipitation over the study periods. This change leads to a smaller and inverted precipitation gradient across the border, representing a significant modification in the precipitation pattern over the northern region. Overall, this study discovers significant inconsistency in the precipitation measurements across the USA–Canada border. This discontinuity is greater for snowfall than for rainfall, as gauge snowfall observations have large errors in windy and cold conditions. This result will certainly impact regional, particularly cross-border, climate and hydrology investigations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The bias caused by undercatch can be substantial for stations located at high latitudes and in mountains.
“The bias caused by undercatch can be substantial for stations located at high latitudes and the mountains (Yang et al., 2005; Scaff et al., 2015).”
From SCDNA: a serially complete precipitation and temperature dataset for North America from 1979 to 2018 (2020) · cites this paper as Scaff et al., 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SCDNA: a serially complete precipitation and temperature dataset for North America from 1979 to 2018
Tang, G., Clark, M. P., Newman, A. J., Wood, A. W., Papalexiou, S. M., Vionnet, V., & Whitfield, P. H. (2020) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-12-2381-2020 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
- Authors
- Scaff, L., Yang, D., Li, Y., & Mekis, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Saskatchewan (CA)
- Environment and Climate Change Canada (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Y.
- Venue
- The Cryosphere
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2015-12-21
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2417-2428
- ISSN
- 1994-0416 (ISSN-L)
- 1994-0424
- OpenAlex
- W2218413940
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Cryosphere (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- University of Saskatchewan
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Precipitation Measurement and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Cryospheric studies and observations
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Keywords
- solid precipitation, double mass analysis, precipitation gradient
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