DOCSLIB.ORG

A Review of the Forest Service Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) Network

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Review of the Forest Service Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) Network A Review of the Forest Service Remote Automated Weather United States Department of Agriculture Station (RAWS) Network Forest Service Rocky Mountain John Zachariassen Research Station Karl Zeller General Technical Ned Nikolov Report RMRS-GTR-119 Tom McClelland December 2003 Zachariassen, John; Zeller, Karl F.; Nikolov, Ned; and McClelland, Tom. 2003. A review of the Forest Service Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) network. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-119. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 153 p + CD. Abstract The RAWS network and RAWS data-use systems are closely reviewed and summarized in this report. RAWS is an active program created by the many land-management agencies that share a common need for accurate and timely weather data from remote locations for vital operational and program decisions specific to wildland and prescribed fires. A RAWS measures basic observable weather parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, and precipitation as well as “fuel stick” temperature. Data from almost 1,900 stations deployed across the conterminous United States, Alaska, and Hawaii are now routinely used to calculate and forecast daily fire danger indices, components, and adjective ratings. Fire business applications include the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS), fire behavior, and fire use. Findings point to the fact that although the RAWS program works and provides needed weather data in support of fire operations, there are inefficiencies and significant problem areas that require leadership attention at the National level. Keywords: weather data, fire business, fire use, National Fire Danger Rating System, NFDRS, fire danger, RAWS, forest fire, wildland fire, weather observations, prescribed burns The Authors John Zachariassen, Karl F. Zeller, and Ned Nikolov are with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO 80526 USA. Tom McClelland is with the USDA Forest Service. Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants Management Office, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 20090 USA. The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any production or service You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the publication title and series number. Fort Collins Service Center Telephone (970) 498-1392 FAX (970) 498-1396 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm Mailing address Publications Distribution Rocky Mountain Research Station 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 Rocky Mountain Research Station Natural Resources Research Center 2150 Centre Avenue, Building A Fort Collins, CO 80526 A Review of the Forest Service Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) Network John Zachariassen Karl Zeller Ned Nikolov Tom McClelland Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those who have helped in the preparation of this report; techni- cal support, providing RAWS documentation, history, points of contact, personal communi- cations, and answers to long lists of questions, etc.: Constance Lemos, Joyce VanDeWater, Rosemary Reinhart, Kolleen Shelley, Linnea Keating, Phil Sielaff, Buddy Adams, Bob Hamre, Charles Kazimir, Jeff Barnes, Mike Barrowcliff, Rick Ochoa, Dave Clement, Barry Shindelar, Chuck Maxwell, Russ Gripp, Beth Little, Barry Garten, personnel at the Northern California Training Center and Ft. Collins dispatch office, Mark Nelson, Paul Schlobom, Larry Bradshaw, Greg McCurdy, Kelly Redmond, Tim Mathewson, Steve Marien, Ann Stegmaier, Sue Stillings, Keth McGillivary, Ken Reninger, and Terry Marsha. We are sure we have forgotten some peo- ple who were also a great help and for that we apologize. We would also like to thank the USDA Forest Service Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants Management Washington Office and the USDA Forest Service Air Program Washington Office (Richard Fisher) for funding support. We acknowledge Kelly Homstad, our Metro State College student intern during the summer of 2002, for her help with this report, especially the Appendices W, X and Y. ii Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1 What Is RAWS? ............................................................................................................................... 1 Is the RAWS Network Working? ...................................................................................................... 3 Report Organization ......................................................................................................................... 3 Background of the RAWS Network................................................................................................... 3 A Brief History .................................................................................................................................. 3 RAWS Classification Schemes ........................................................................................................ 4 RAWS Information Management Systems ...................................................................................... 5 National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS)........................................................................... 6 Administrative and Forest Fire Information Retrieval and Management System (AFFIRMS) .... 6 National Interagency Fire Management Integrated Database (NIFMID) .................................... 6 Automatic Sorting, Conversion, and Distribution System (ASCADS)......................................... 6 Wildland Fire Assessment System (WFAS) ................................................................................ 7 Western Region Climate Center (WRCC) ................................................................................... 7 Multiagency Resource...................................................................................................................... 7 NFDRS 2000 Standards .................................................................................................................. 7 Data Stream and Products................................................................................................................. 8 Summary of Data Flow..................................................................................................................... 8 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Operations, Protocols, and Organization ........................................................................................ 9 Installation and Deployment........................................................................................................... 10 Sensor Equipment.......................................................................................................................... 10 Sampling Protocols ........................................................................................................................ 10 Standard Sampling Protocols.................................................................................................... 10 NFDRS 2000 Sampling Protocol............................................................................................... 11 Recent Updates to NFDRS 2000 Standards ............................................................................ 12 Findings on Solar Radiation Data. ............................................................................ 12 Positions and Responsibilities (RAWS, WIMS, and NFDRS)........................................................ 12 NFDRS 2000 Standards............................................................................................................ 12 Findings................................................................................................................................. 13 Local Quality Control and Assurance (QA/QC)............................................................................. 13 Operating Period ............................................................................................................................ 14 Maintenance and Calibration ......................................................................................................... 14 Service Contracts...................................................................................................................... 14 Staffing Needs........................................................................................................................... 15 Findings................................................................................................................................. 15 Administrative Organization ........................................................................................................... 15 FS Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 16 Funding for Station Purchase, Repair, and Upgrades............................................................... 16 Funding for WIMS.....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Measurement of Radiation
    CHAPTER CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 7. MEASUREMENT OF RADIATION ........................................ 222 7.1 General ................................................................... 222 7.1.1 Definitions ......................................................... 222 7.1.2 Units and scales ..................................................... 223 7.1.2.1 Units ...................................................... 223 7.1.2.2 Standardization. 223 7.1.3 Meteorological requirements ......................................... 224 7.1.3.1 Data to be reported. 224 7.1.3.2 Uncertainty ................................................ 225 7.1.3.3 Sampling and recording. 225 7.1.3.4 Times of observation. 225 7.1.4 Measurement methods .............................................. 225 7.2 Measurement of direct solar radiation ......................................... 227 7.2.1 Direct solar radiation ................................................ 228 7.2.1.1 Primary standard pyrheliometers .............................. 228 7.2.1.2 Secondary standard pyrheliometers ............................ 229 7.2.1.3 Field and network pyrheliometers ............................. 230 7.2.1.4 Calibration of pyrheliometers ................................. 231 7.2.2 Exposure ........................................................... 232 7.3 Measurement of global and diffuse sky radiation ................................ 232 7.3.1 Calibration of pyranometers .......................................... 232 7.3.1.1 By reference to a standard pyrheliometer and a shaded
    [Show full text]
  • LZ Streets County Boundary Printed 4/23/2018 ®
    H R A I L R FR526 D A R G R HORSE SAD I DLE M SO E A A AP 9 STO RIN M N NE G 8 R TAIL RAN P I CH R E O O HORN L BUFFALO C C E O C TW K W A V O T O F N E B H R R C R W E RAWA S DIAMOND PEAK LZ AR E 2 A L E S A D 0 A V S 2 M O K L E A WALNO C R O B F B E O C M R N # K R * N E L I D W R A A E C G L K O D N T A A O D BIG HOLE A E S C N R R E A R R P H N E I E F D R B 8 E R Y R 9 V O P R L F SOAPSTONE PRAIRIE NA NORTH LOT LZ P O F S T R E C C A Y D U U H IX D Y W T M K A C D B L K W E S N F # N * M N T F E A S U L O Y Y IT A O L T M S B N O E Y Y V E M C O B R S D N R K O W A R I I A E N E O A R L R N E H I C IG L C L R W R AN I G 4 W E T D S E C S P F A B 3 R R N 7 A I E U T 8 NG I P F P N S G E R A Q O R F S L R L T H C T I S Y P R V 6 I E F C 4 0 I S N 5 A 2 O N E C D A D S R R C L G R 3 F N R G D 1 W T E N 2 U R N S 0 AIL L E I E O C R RED MOUNTAIN OPEN SPACE LZ K 3 RE K K O A O EK R L E M C Z R M N TIM P L N E BER # S E *N O C G T W H I O K R L N N Y E E N L O K H E C I C N C R L A Y C O I I C L H A O V T L P CR80C & FR87C LZ T E VIRGINIA DALE LZ I N A R G C N R RA ED O N J E E A A L P A R I S SH W E L 2 B R C F Y E R A T *# *# P F 8 1 S H C R C A D 8 O E 1 T A 7 E T A HOHNHOLZ LAKES LZ K R AT R E SOAPSTONE PRAIRIE NA SOUTH LOT LZ R V R N I C O R M M P E T R F F E I T 200 B U E W FR L E P # B S L E # * Y * R E K IN E T S C T I H L O 5 C N G K 4 E LS CREEK R I C DEVI D O F A 5 C N S D N E E W R EATON RESERVOIR LZ A I T F I N P U R E BE R A P E R K Q A D 5 R L 9 P *# N O V N K E I A T S T D L I M U D I CR80C MM 22 LZ L D M H E R E Y *# E C B V U R S L CR80C & CR89 LZ T L T DE D E M R S # W PA N E * A R T U L K HOMESTEAD LZ JOY A R N C 0 O J K CANYON O 4 E W A P HA F W 5 R R # L IV ROUND BUTTE LZ * X E R I ATE D F D M R CR92 W IV # B E * CH E E N L F A AN D R R H E R C 5 T J 2 O 3 R P R 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Snow Initializations in NCEP Global and Regional Forecasting Models
    JUNE 2016 D A W S O N E T A L . 1885 An Evaluation of Snow Initializations in NCEP Global and Regional Forecasting Models NICHOLAS DAWSON,PATRICK BROXTON,XUBIN ZENG, AND MICHAEL LEUTHOLD Department of Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona MICHAEL BARLAGE Research Applications Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado PAT HOLBROOK Idaho Power Company, Boise, Idaho (Manuscript received 13 November 2015, in final form 10 April 2016) ABSTRACT Snow plays a major role in land–atmosphere interactions, but strong spatial heterogeneity in snow depth (SD) and snow water equivalent (SWE) makes it challenging to evaluate gridded snow quantities using in situ measurements. First, a new method is developed to upscale point measurements into gridded datasets that is superior to other tested methods. It is then utilized to generate daily SD and SWE datasets for water years 2012–14 using measurements from two networks (COOP and SNOTEL) in the United States. These datasets are used to evaluate daily SD and SWE initializations in NCEP global forecasting models (GFS and CFSv2, both on 0.5830.58 grids) and regional models (NAM on 12 km 3 12 km grids and RAP on 13 km 3 13 km grids) across eight 28328 boxes. Initialized SD from three models (GFS, CFSv2, and NAM) that utilize Air Force Weather Agency (AFWA) SD data for initialization is 77% below the area-averaged values, on av- erage. RAP initializations, which cycle snow instead of using the AFWA SD, underestimate SD to a lesser degree. Compared with SD errors, SWE errors from GFS, CFSv2, and NAM are larger because of the ap- plication of unrealistically low and globally constant snow densities.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Spatial and Temporal Variability in Channel
    THESIS SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIABILITY IN CHANNEL SURFACE FLOW ACROSS AN ELEVATION GRADIENT ON THE COLORADO FRONT RANGE Submitted by Caroline Martin Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Spring 2018 Masters Coittee: Advisor: Stephanie Kampf Sara Rathburn Michael Falkowski Copyright by Caroline Elizabeth Martin 2018 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL VARIABILITY IN CHANNEL SURFACE FLOW ACROSS AN ELEVATION GRADIENT ON COLORADO FRONT RANGE Topographic indices such as Upslope Accumulation Area (UAA) and the Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) are commonly used in watershed analyses to derive channel networks. These indices work well for large rivers and streams, but they do not always produce stream locations that match those observed in the field for headwater streams, where geology and soils affect locations of surface channels. This study maps the actively flowing drainage network of four headwater watersheds across an elevation gradient in the Colorado Front Range and examines how these locations of flow relate to topography, geology, climate, and soils. The objectives are to 1) document and digitize the active stream networks in the field, 2) delineate stream network with topographic indices and evaluate how index-derived channel networks compare with observations, and 3) evaluate how geology, climate, and soils affect surface water flow paths. Study sites are small headwater watersheds (1.7 – 15.5 km2) that vary in elevation from 1780 m up to 4190 m. At each watershed, surveys of surface water locations were conducted twice during the summer about a month apart in order to capture temporal variation.
    [Show full text]
  • Streaming Yujin Luo Final
    The Streaming War During the Covid-19 Pandemic Yujin Luo The Streaming War During the Covid-19 Pandemic 2 home, which is the ideal condition for The Covid-19 pandemic has drastically binge-watching. disrupted all business sectors. The arts, culture, and entertainment industries have To understand how the pandemic is shaping been hit exceptionally hard since the virus’ the streaming industry, it is important to first outbreak in January. In response to the understand its pre-Covid and current status. crisis, businesses have taken immediate The following analysis will divide the actions: transitioning to remote work, timeline into before 2020 and in 2020 based canceling and postponing live events on Covid-19’s first outbreak in January nationwide, shutting down entertainment 2020. venues, etc., resulting in lost revenues from sales, merchandising, advertising, and The Streaming Industry’s Pre-Covid promotions. Unfortunately, the Covid-19 State of the Major Players in the pandemic’s impacts are far more Streaming War permanent for an audience-oriented industry that requires a high level of Early adopters and fast followers used to be engagement. The business model might be the main audiences of streaming services, fundamentally changed and there will or in other words, streaming used to be a certainly be a shift in how content is niche add-on to traditional TV. Now, it is produced and consumed. transitioning to a new stage as a mainstream element in the entertainment While lockdowns and social distancing industry. The major streaming services from measures to contain the pandemic have before Covid are shown in the table below, had a huge impact on the traditional movie except for HBO Max, Peacock, and Quibi industry, the video streaming model seems (RIP) that just launched in 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Monitoring Division Collaborations/Stakeholders
    Global Monitoring Division Collaborations/Stakeholders Contents: page • Joint Institutes...................................................................2 • NOAA Laboratories and Divisions…………………………………….2 • NOAA Programs…………………………………………………………………4 • Other Federal Agencies……………………………………………………..4 • State and Municipal Agencies……………………………………………9 • National and International Networks……………………………….10 • Observatory Partnerships…………………………………………………11 • International Partnerships………………………………………………..15 • Other Research Collaborations……………………………………….18 2 GLOBAL MONITORING DIVISION COLLABORATIONS 2013- Present JOINT INSTITUTES: • Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES): NOAA Cooperative Institute at the University of Colorado. Extensive joint research and atmospheric monitoring projects are conducted at the Boulder facilities. • Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR): NOAA Cooperative Institute at the University of Alaska. Cooperative research in Arctic atmospheric science at the Barrow and Boulder facilities. • Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (CIMMS): NOAA Cooperative Institute at the University of Oklahoma. GMD provides large amounts of high quality data for modelers. • Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA): NOAA Cooperative Institute at the Colorado State University. Joint research projects are conducted at the Boulder facility. • Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (JIMAR): NOAA Cooperative Institute at the University of Hawaii. Studies of
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Weather Area Forecast Matrices User’S Guide to Decoding the AFW
    Fire Weather Area Forecast Matrices User’s Guide to Decoding the AFW What are the Area Forecast Matrices? The Area Forecast Matrices (AFW) is a table that displays the forecasted weather parameters in 3, 6 and 12 hour intervals out to 7 days in the future. Below is a sample AFW, along with a description of each parameter’s code (blue colored numbers). (1) NCZ510-082100- EASTERN POLK- INCLUDING THE CITIES OF...COLUMBUS 939 AM EST THU DEC 8 2011 (2) DATE THU 12/08/11 FRI 12/09/11 SAT 12/10/11 UTC 3HRLY 09 12 15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 18 21 00 EST 3HRLY 04 07 10 13 16 19 22 01 04 07 10 13 16 19 22 01 04 07 10 13 16 19 (3) MAX/MIN 51 30 54 32 52 (4) TEMP 39 49 51 41 36 33 32 31 42 51 52 44 39 36 33 32 41 49 50 41 (5) DEWPT 24 21 20 23 26 28 28 26 26 25 25 28 28 26 26 26 26 26 25 25 (6) MIN/MAX RH 29 93 34 78 37 (7) RH 55 32 29 47 67 82 86 79 52 36 35 52 65 68 73 78 53 40 37 51 (8) WIND DIR NW S S SE NE NW NW N NW S S W NW NW NW NW N N N N (9) WIND DIR DEG 33 16 18 12 02 33 31 33 32 19 20 25 33 32 32 32 34 35 35 35 (10) WIND SPD 5 4 5 2 3 0 0 1 2 4 3 2 3 5 5 6 8 8 6 5 (11) CLOUDS CL CL CL FW FW SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC FW FW FW FW (12) CLOUDS(%) 0 2 1 10 25 34 35 35 33 31 34 37 40 43 37 33 24 15 12 9 (13) VSBY 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 (14) POP 12HR 0 0 5 10 10 (15) QPF 12HR 0 0 0 0 0 (16) LAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (17) HAINES 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 (18) DSI 1 2 2 (19) MIX HGT 2900 1500 300 3000 2900 400 600 4200 4100 (20) T WIND DIR S NE N SW SW NW NW NW N (21) T WIND SPD 5 3 2 6 9 3 8 13 14 (22) ADI 27 2 5 44 51 5 17
    [Show full text]
  • Snow Modeling and Observations at NOAA's National Operational
    Snow Modeling and Observations at NOAA’S National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center Thomas R. Carroll National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chanhassen, Minnesota, USA Abstract The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC) routinely ingests all of the electronically available, real-time, ground-based, snow data; airborne snow water equivalent data; satellite areal extent of snow cover information; and numerical weather prediction (NWP) model forcings for the coterminous United States. The NWP model forcings are physically downscaled from their native 13 kilometer2 (km) spatial resolution to a 1 km2 resolution for the coterminous United States. The downscaled NWP forcings drive the NOHRSC Snow Model (NSM) that includes an energy-and-mass-balance snow accumulation and ablation model run at a 1 km2 spatial resolution and at a 1 hour temporal resolution for the country. The ground-based, airborne, and satellite snow observations are assimilated into the model state variables simulated by the NSM using a Newtonian nudging technique. The principle advantages of the assimilation technique are: (1) approximate balance is maintained in the NSM, (2) physical processes are easily accommodated in the model, and (3) asynoptic data are incorporated at the appropriate times. The NSM is reinitialized with the assimilated snow observations to generate a variety of snow products that combine to form NOAA’s NOHRSC National Snow Analyses (NSA). The NOHRSC NSA incorporate all of the information necessary and available to produce a “best estimate” of real-time snow cover conditions at 1 km2 spatial resolution and 1 hour temporal resolution for the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Snowfall Accumulation from Satellite and Reanalysis Products Using SNOTEL Observations in Alaska
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 2 June 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202106.0062.v1 Assessment of Snowfall Accumulation from Satellite and Reanalysis Products using SNOTEL Observations in Alaska Yang Song, Patrick D. Broxton, Mohammad Reza Ehsani, Ali Behrangi The University of Arizona, Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences Corresponding author: Ali Behrangi, [email protected] Abstract The combination of snowfall, snow water equivalent (SWE), and precipitation rate measurements from 39 Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites in Alaska are used to assess the performance of various precipitation products from satellites, reanalysis, and rain gauges. Observation of precipitation from two water years (2018-2019) of the high resolution radar/rain gauge data (Stage IV) product was also utilized to add insights into scaling differences between various products. The outcomes were also used to assess two popular methods for rain gauge undercatch correction. It was found that SWE and precipitation measurements at SNOTELs, as well as precipitation estimates based on Stage IV data, are generally consistent and can provide a range in which other products can be assessed. Time-series of snowfall and SWE accumulation suggests that most of the products can capture snowfall events; however, differences exist in their accumulation. Reanalysis products tend to overestimate snow accumulation in the study area, while current combined passive microwave remote sensing products (i.e., IMERG-HQ) underestimate snowfall accumulation. We found that corrections factors applied to rain gauges are effective in improving their undercatch, especially for snowfall. However, no improvement in correlation is seen when correction factors are applied, and rainfall is still estimated better than snowfall.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is a Digital Document from the Collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library
    This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library. For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at [email protected] and include the phrase “Digital Documents” in your subject heading. To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: http://library.wrds.uwyo.edu Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System University of Wyoming, Dept 3943 1000 E University Avenue Laramie, WY 82071 Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming Laramie, WY 82071 Phone: (307) 766-6651 Fax: (307) 766-3785 Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission (http://wwdc.state.wy.us) THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE P. 0. BOX 3038, UNIVERSITY STATION TELEPHONE: 766·2143 LARAMIE, WYOMING 82070 AREA CODE: 307 Water Resources Series No. 24 PRECIPITATION AND ITS MEASUREMENT A STATE OF THE ART Lee W. Larson June 1971 Abstract A comprehensive review of the literature since 1966 for studies and articles dealing with precipitation and its measurement. Topics discussed include gages, gage comparisons, gage shields, errors in measurements, precipitation data, data analysis, networks, and electronic measurements for rain and snow. A bibliogr~phy is included. KEY WORDS: Climatic data/ equipment/ precipitation data/ statistics/ weather data/ wind/ rainfall/ rain gages/ rain/ snow/ snowfall/ snow gages/ snow surveys NOTE: References numbered 1 through 331 in the Partially Annotated Bibliography are listed in alphabetical order. Those numbered 332 and above were obtained after the first list had been prepared for publication and form a second alphabetical listing.
    [Show full text]
  • Ofve' NEW RESIDENTIALCHANNEL LINEUP Effective 2/1 6/16
    Odessa, TX CABLEOfVE' NEW RESIDENTIALCHANNEL LINEUP Effective 2/1 6/16 ECONOMY STAN DARD/ D I G ITAL VALU E PACK* xDigital Standard Cable includes Economy. Value Pack Channels noted in yellow. Additional fee applies. 3 455 ABC.KMID Women's Programming Fomily Programming "too7 .ll 'r,t'¡., I 7 cBs-KosA 1260 Animal Planet 100 1 100 Lifetime 260 B 475 FOX-KPEJ 1262 National Geographic Wild 102 1 102 LMN 262 9 1 009 NBC.KWES 103 OWN 263 1263 Discovery Channel Channel 13 1013 PB5-KPBT "t04 1 104 Bravo 26s 1265 Science Channel 16 1016 MyNetwork-KOSA 108 WE 266 1266 Hallmark 268 1264 Hallmark Movies & Mysteries 17 CW-KWES 112 lnvestigation DiscoverY 114 Oxygen 270 1270 Food Network 1B 1018 Univision-KUPB 1"16 Discovery Life 272 1272 HGTV 20 Telemundo-KTLE 274 1274 History Channel 2',! Galavision Sports 276 1276 H2 (Viceland) 22 UniMas 133 1 133 ESPN 277 1277 National Geographic Ch. '134 "t134 25 MeTV-KWWT ESPN2 241 Travel Channel 135 ESPN News 26 Decades 136 ESPNU Ch il dren's Proqra m m i n q 27 Movies 1 NBC Sports 137 137 300 1 300 Sprout 52 God's Learning Channel-KMLM "t39 ',t39 1 CBS Sports 302 1302 Disney Channel 56 Goverment Access 140 FCS Atlantic 304 Disney XD '141 72 Leased Access FCS Central 307 1307 FreeForm FCS Pacific 7B C-SPAN 142 311 Discovery Family 146 1146 FOX Sports 1 79 C-SPAN2 313 Disney Jr. 144 1 144 FOX Sports 2 Boomerang BO BYU 316 1 FOX Sports SW 155 155 317 1317 Cartoon Network 82 INSP 157 1157 NFL Network TBN 1 Golf Channel B4 158 158 News 85 EWTN 160 1 160 Outdoor €hannel 333 TheWeather Channel 161 ESPN Classic B6
    [Show full text]
  • Download Gate.Html (Accessed on 20 April 2021)
    remote sensing Article Assessment of Snowfall Accumulation from Satellite and Reanalysis Products Using SNOTEL Observations in Alaska Yang Song 1, Patrick D. Broxton 2, Mohammad Reza Ehsani 1 and Ali Behrangi 1,* 1 Department of Hydrology and Atmospheric Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; [email protected] (Y.S.); [email protected] (M.R.E.) 2 School of Natural Resources and the Environment, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The combination of snowfall, snow water equivalent (SWE), and precipitation rate mea- surements from 39 snow telemetry (SNOTEL) sites in Alaska were used to assess the performance of various precipitation products from satellites, reanalysis, and rain gauges. Observation of precipita- tion from two water years (2018–2019) of a high-resolution radar/rain gauge data (Stage IV) product was also utilized to give insights into the scaling differences between various products. The outcomes were used to assess two popular methods for rain gauge undercatch correction. It was found that SWE and precipitation measurements at SNOTELs, as well as precipitation estimates based on Stage IV data, are generally consistent and can provide a range within which other products can be assessed. The time-series of snowfall and SWE accumulation suggests that most of the products can capture snowfall events; however, differences exist in their accumulation. Reanalysis products tended to overestimate snow accumulation in the study area, while the current combined passive microwave Citation: Song, Y.; Broxton, P.D.; remote sensing products (i.e., IMERG-HQ) underestimate snowfall accumulation.
    [Show full text]