Laserfiche WebLink
<br />12 <br /> <br />PAVG. = the average precipitation for the available record at the <br />J <br /> <br />station for which the specific monthly value is being <br />estimated. <br /> <br />For the purpose of making these estimates, 25 state climatic divisions <br /> <br /> <br />were used (Doesken et al., 1983). These divisions are shown in <br /> <br />Figure 3. <br />B. Ratio adjustment procedure <br />Priority 3 stations (only 15-24 complete years of data) had far too <br /> <br />much missing data to justify estimating values for each missing month, <br /> <br /> <br />For these stations, annual averages were calculated based on only the <br /> <br />available complete years of data. Then annual averages were adjusted to <br /> <br /> <br />the 1951-1980 period using the ratio adjustment method defined below. <br /> <br />L TAVGj <br /> <br />= <br /> <br />STAVG_ <br />J_ <br />STAVGk <br /> <br />x LTAVGk, <br /> <br />where <br /> <br />LTAVG. = adjusted 1951-80 annual mean precipitation for station j. <br />J <br />STAVG. = short term annual mean precipitation calculated from <br />J <br /> <br />available complete years of data for station j. <br /> <br /> <br />STAVGk = annual mean precipitation for station k (priority 1 <br /> <br /> <br />station) computed for those years station j had complete <br /> <br /> <br />data. <br /> <br />LTAVGk = 1951-80 mean annual precipitation for station k. <br /> <br /> <br />In order to determine which "long-term" 3D-year priority 1 station might <br /> <br />provide the best comparison with any particular short term priority 3 <br /> <br /> <br />station, the state was divided into 7 regions (Figure 4), Correlation <br /> <br /> <br />coefficients were then computed for all possible combinations of short- <br /> <br /> <br />term and 3D-year.stations in each region based on precipitation totals <br />