Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.........0.25 <br />c <br />.......... <br />LaJ <br />3: 0.20 <br />(() <br />>-. <br />"L: <br />::l <br />00.15 <br />:c <br />"U <br />L. <br />0 <br />00.10 <br />l:D <br />~ <br />0 <br />c 0.05 <br />(() <br />. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Ze = 130 52.0 <br />. 14 Albany Sites <br />N=736. R=0.73 <br /> <br />. . - . <br />. . .. <br /> <br />0.00 <br />0.00 <br /> <br />-. . <br />- .. <br /> <br />0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 <br />Radar-est. Hourly SWE (in) <br /> <br />F gure 4. - Similar to figure 3 but for 736 hourly observations based on 14 snow board sites located between 20 <br />a d 40 km range from the Albany radar. Radar estimates are based on the noted Z,,-S relation. The R-value is <br />073. <br /> <br /> <br />o special calibration was performed for the Albany radar during or after the 1995-96 winter season, so <br />it has been necessary to assume its data are correct. <br /> <br />F gure 4 shows the optimized equation (1) a value was 130, and the pvalue was 2.0, with an R value of <br />073. The 14 sites used on figure 4 were subdivided into the 7 from 20 to 31 km range and the 7 from <br />3 to 40 km range. The optimized a and pvalues for the closer set (N=396) were 141 and 1.9, and for <br />e farther set (N=340) were 115 and 2.1. Their respective average hourly SWE accumulations were <br />0037 and 0.036 inch, almost twice the Cleveland and Denver averages shown in table 5. The degree of <br />a reement between the two nearby sets of Albany observing sites is encouraging, suggesting the <br />easurements are of good quality, with limited wind effects, and of sufficient number to provide stable <br />r suIts. <br /> <br /> <br />e exponent on figure 4 is the same 2.0 value found for Cleveland and Denver as discussed in section <br />5 1. The coefficient is slightly smaller than the value of 150 recommended for Denver and markedly less <br />an that recommended for Cleveland. Based on the data of figure 4, an a value of 130 and p value of <br />2 0 is recommended for use in the Albany area. <br /> <br />s discussed in section 6, the order of recommended p values matches the reverse order of median snow <br />d nsity for the three locales. But this match may be fortuitous because the recommended a values of 130 <br />f, r Albany and 150 for Denver have little practical difference. It was noted that the two Albany subsets <br />p oduced p values of 141 and 115, and table 5 shows that Denver gages 1,2, and 3 produced values <br />r nging from 127 to 161, so the difference between 130 and 150 is within the variation of the <br />o timization results. Moreover, using p = 2.0 for both locations, the Denver relation results in only <br /> <br />18 <br />