Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The Cleveland approach worked very well. Selecting gage operators who showed definite <br />interest in the project by responding to the NOAA weather radio appeal and hiring a part- <br />time local meteorologist to oversee the project resulted in a high quality data set. Few <br />problems were encountered with the Cleveland area gage network. The enthusiasm and <br />dedication of all five gage operatprs and Mr. Paddock were remarkable. <br /> <br />Table 5 lists the five Belfort gage locations and gage operators. As with Albany and Denver <br />sites, latitudes and longitudes were determined by GPS, and altitudes were extracted from <br />a terrain data base or large-scale maps. <br /> <br />Table 5. - Locations offive Belfort gage sites in the Cleveland area. Gages No.1 to 4 were located in <br />Ohio, and gage No.5 was located in northwestern Pennsylvania. <br /> <br /> m.s.I. Distance/Azimuth <br />Gage Location Gage Latitude Longitude Elevation from Radar <br />(Operator) No. (0_') (0_') (m) (kmjO)* <br />Highland Hts 1 41-33.126 81-28.348 292 36/64 <br />(A. Marshall) <br />Chardon 2 41-36.712 81-10.382 359 61/69 <br />(D. Brady) <br />Geneva 3 41-46.552 80-56.317 247 87/62 <br />(M. Bezoski) <br />Pierpont 4 41-44.330 80-32.780 317 115/71 <br />(P. Mechling) <br />Cranesville 5 41-55.299 80-14.301 373 146/67 <br />(D. Henderson) <br /> <br />All five Cleveland area gages were brought to operational status during the first week of <br />November, well ahead of the mid-November schedule called for under this task. Snowstorms <br />began affecting the gage network after the first three gages were installed. Because of record <br />snowfalls in the area, many storm periods were observed by the gage network and by radar. <br />Most were lake effect storms, but some general synoptic storms were also observed. <br /> <br />.A listing of all storms that produced more than minor snowfall in the Belfort gage line is <br />given in table 6. This table was prepared from a larger list supplied by Bob LaPlante and <br />Frank Kieltyka of the Cleveland WFO which includes all snowfall events, some very minor <br />along the gage line. Messrs. LaPlante and Kieltyka classified each storm into one of three <br />categories: Major LES (lake effect storms), defined by production of at least 6 inches of <br />snowfall in no more than 12 hours at 2 or more sites in a county; major synoptic storms; and <br />other less prominent events which were not classified (mixture of minor lake effect storms <br />and "other"). The latter are called "Minor Events" in table 6, although some produced <br />significant snow at one or more gages. <br /> <br />The standard method of clutter suppression with the Cleveland WSR-88D during the past <br />winter was to use the clutter bypass map and moderate suppression except from November <br />1 through December 4, 1995, when high suppression is believed to have been applied. In <br />addition, an operator-designated box was established over the gage nearest the radar from <br />.29 to 43 km and 53 to 750 azimuth. Zero suppression was applied within the box from <br />December 4, 1995, until the end of the field season (personal communication with Bob <br />LaPlante, Cleveland Science Operations Officer). <br /> <br />12 <br />