Using Snowfall Intensity to Improve the Correction of Wind-Induced Undercatch in Solid Precipitation Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Transfer functions are generally used to adjust for the wind-induced undercatch of solid precipitation measurements. These functions are derived based on the variation of the collection efficiency with wind speed for a particular type of gauge, either using field experiments or based on numerical simulation. Most studies use the wind speed alone, while others also include surface air temperature and/or precipitation type to try to reduce the scatter of the residuals at a given wind speed. In this study, we propose the use of the measured precipitation intensity to improve the effectiveness of the transfer function. This is achieved by applying optimized curve fitting to field measurements from the Marshall field-test site (CO, USA). The use of a non-gradient optimization algorithm ensures optimal binning of experimental data according to the parameter under test. The results reveal that using precipitation intensity as an explanatory variable significantly reduce the scatter of the residuals. The scatter reduction as indicated by the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is confirmed by the analysis of the recent quality controlled data from the WMO/SPICE campaign, showing that this approach can be applied to a variety of locations and catching-type gauges. We demonstrate the physical basis of the relationship between the collection efficiency and the measured precipitation intensity, due to the correlation of large particles with high intensities, by conducting a Computational Fluid-Dynamics (CFD) simulation. We use a Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes SST k-ω model coupled with a Lagrangian particle-tracking model. Results validate the hypothesis of using the measured precipitation intensity as a key parameter to improve the correction of wind-induced undercatch. Findings have the potential to improve operational measurements since no additional instrument other than a wind sensor is required to apply the correction. This improves the accuracy of precipitation measurements without the additional cost of ancillary instruments such as particle counters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".