Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for
- Author or Editor: Paul E. Carlson x
- Refine by Access: Content accessible to me x
Abstract
Using a CPS-9 radar (wavelength 3.2 cm, beamwidth 1°) in dry snow, radar returns from a layer at an average height of 5000 ft were converted to snowfall rates (taking Z∝R 2.0) and summed over 36 hr to obtain a map of snowfall amount. This has been compared with a “climat” map based on depth measurements of new fallen snow at 140 climatological stations within 100 mi of the radar, said amounts ranging from under 2 to over 10 inches. For the 5550 mi2 area within 42 mi of the radar, the average amount by radar was set equal to the average climat amount. The radar/climat ratio was mapped, with the distribution being log normal. For ranges <42 mi, 68% of the data fell between values of 0.76 and 1.32. For ranges between 42 and 100 mi, 68% fell between 0.63 and 1.60. This scatter is about the same as other workers have found for rain. In the relation Z = aRb , a value for b of 2.0 proved appropriate to this particular storm, with some evidence that a slightly higher value might have been a little better.
Abstract
Using a CPS-9 radar (wavelength 3.2 cm, beamwidth 1°) in dry snow, radar returns from a layer at an average height of 5000 ft were converted to snowfall rates (taking Z∝R 2.0) and summed over 36 hr to obtain a map of snowfall amount. This has been compared with a “climat” map based on depth measurements of new fallen snow at 140 climatological stations within 100 mi of the radar, said amounts ranging from under 2 to over 10 inches. For the 5550 mi2 area within 42 mi of the radar, the average amount by radar was set equal to the average climat amount. The radar/climat ratio was mapped, with the distribution being log normal. For ranges <42 mi, 68% of the data fell between values of 0.76 and 1.32. For ranges between 42 and 100 mi, 68% fell between 0.63 and 1.60. This scatter is about the same as other workers have found for rain. In the relation Z = aRb , a value for b of 2.0 proved appropriate to this particular storm, with some evidence that a slightly higher value might have been a little better.
