Cited by 33Precipitation Measurement and AnalysisCryospheric studies and observationsClimate variability and models

Inconsistency in precipitation measurements across the Alaska–Yukon border

Open access
Scaff, L., Yang, D., Li, Y., Mekis, E.·2015·The Cryosphere

Published 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

Crossref · 10.5194/tc-9-2417-2015

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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