[pct-l] Sierra Snow

[steve_peterson at sbcglobal.net (Steve Peterson)]

Hey, Scott, I wouldn't yell at you! You do good work--Love the PostHoler!

I am well aware of how flaky the UTY sensor can be. I do use the "revised" data, 
for  all sensors, not just UTY.

I also realize how "flaky" (pun intended) long range snow forecasts can be. I 
was just totally amazed there was *any* correlation this far in advance, and I 
figured others might also be amused by this.

Naturally, I'm not "betting the ranch" (casting any of my plans in concrete) at 
this point (nor will I until about June 1) and you are right to caution against 
doing so.
--Steve


stillroaming wrote:
> Hey Steve,
> 
> The effort you must have out into this is commendable! I'm going to pick at
> it a bit, so don't yell at me. :)
> 
> The reliability of the UTY sensor is iffy at best. Last season the sensor
> stopped reporting on April 17. The data was revised to 'missing', however
> the raw data shows a value. Don't rely on raw values. You are using
> 'revised' data for your analysis, right? Following are links to UTY data
> supporting my statement:
> 
> Tabular data:
> http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/queryDaily?s=UTY&d=%202-Dec-2005+22:00&sp
> an=8months
> 
> Graph data:
> http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/histPlot?station_id=UTY&sensor_num=82&dur
> _code=D&start_date=10%2F01%2F2004&end_date=now&geom=800x300
> 
> With that said, any data you collect on June 12th from the UTY sensor is
> suspect. How many of the past 30 years actually had good 'revised' data from
> the UTY sensor on June 12th? I'd be curious, I don't know.
> 
> Further, making de facto forecasts of snow conditions months in advance,
> based on less than 30 years worth of averaged data is a questionable method.
> It's been snowing in the Sierra's for a zillion years. 30 years worth of
> averaged, probably flawed data from 2 sensors is not what I'd bet the ranch
> on.
> 
> Just my opinion, not a professional one. I know how much fun it is to play
> with data, so I can relate to what you are doing.
> 
> Have Fun,
> Scott Parks
>