Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Improving surface-based precipitation phase determination through air mass boundary identification
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Land and Water Resources Engineering.
2012 (English)In: Hydrology Research, ISSN 1998-9563, Vol. 43, no 3, 179-191 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Most hydrological models apply one empirical formula based on surface air temperature for precipitation phase determination. This approach is flawed as surface precipitation phase results from energy exchanges between falling precipitation and air in the lower atmosphere. Different lower atmospheric conditions cause different precipitation phase probabilities for near-freezing temperatures. Often directly measured lower atmospheric conditions are not available for remote areas. However, meteorological observations occurring before/after similar air mass boundaries have similar atmospheric conditions that vary from most other observations. Therefore, hydrological models can indirectly account for lower atmospheric conditions. Twenty years of manual observations from eight United States weather stations were used to compare misclassified precipitation proportions when analyzing (a) all precipitation observations together and (b) identified cold air mass boundary observations (CAB) and non-CAB observations separately. The CAB observations were identified by a rapid surface air temperature decrease. A two-surface air temperature threshold method with one threshold all snow (T-S degrees C) and one all rain (T-R degrees C) having a linear snow fraction decrease between the thresholds was used. The T-S (0 degrees C), and T-R (4 degrees C) values for CAB were 1 degrees C warmer than for non-CAB (-1 degrees C, 3 degrees C). Analyzing CAB and non-CAB separately reduced misclassified precipitation 23%, from 7.0 to 5.4%.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 43, no 3, 179-191 p.
Keyword [en]
air mass boundary, modeling, precipitation phase, rain, snow
National Category
Oceanography, Hydrology and Water Resources
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-92070DOI: 10.2166/nh.2012.060ISI: 000300635000002Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84860633045OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-92070DiVA: diva2:512055
Note
QC 20120326Available from: 2012-03-26 Created: 2012-03-26 Last updated: 2018-01-12Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Gustafsson, David
By organisation
Land and Water Resources Engineering
Oceanography, Hydrology and Water Resources

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 45 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf