In a recent study, Sanders and Hoffman (2002, hereafter SH) found that only about half of the cold-front segments appearing on surface maps of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) from December 1999 through February 2000 were associated, even loosely, with a moderately strong surface baroclinic zone. In an earlier study (Sanders and Kessler 1999), some extreme examples had been identified in which an abrupt nocturnal temperature rise was analyzed as the passage of a cold front. These features are clearly not the type of structure described by Bjerknes (1918). To enlarge the sample of comparisons between analyzed fronts and baroclinic zones reported by SH, a comparison was made for the period between 7 February and 29 March 2002. The fronts were again taken from analyses prepared by the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC) of NCEP. The maps of surface potential temperature were prepared at the Department of Atmospheric Science, The University of Arizona, and were manually analyzed without knowledge of the concurrent frontal analysis. As in SH, the times were 0000 and 1200 UTC and the area of analysis was the same. The analysis consisted of isotherms at intervals of 8°C. Areas of moderate or intense gradient, representing an 8°C contrast of potential temperate over distances of no more than 220 or 110 km, respectively, were marked. These distances represent values of the gradient close to those used by SH. Edges of frontal segments occurred where the analyzed notation changed, generally at centers of low pressure, or where indicated in the analyses, or at the edge of the analyzed area. Warm fronts, cold fronts, and stationary fronts were separately considered. A small number of occluded segments occurred but were considered as extended portions of cold or warm fronts, depending on whether the air following the frontal wind shift was colder or warmer than the air ahead. Whereas SH considered each segment as associated or not associated with a baroclinic zone, in this study the total length of each segment was measured, as was the length associated with a baroclinic zone. Association was considered to occur if the analyzed front lay within 220 km of the warm edge of a zone, or was within it. Where the orientations of the front and of the zone differed by nearly 90°, the two were considered associated if the air on the cold side of the front was significantly colder than the air on the warm side, but not otherwise. The length and proportions of frontal segments associated with baroclinic zones are presented in Table 1. In the table the fractional length of segments associated with baroclinic zones was around one-half for both times and for all frontal types. Cold frontal segments were not less associated, as in the study by SH (seen in their Table 3). The lengths of stationary and cold fronts is understated because in many instances the segment was terminated when it reached the limits of the area of analysis of potential temperature, usually over the ocean. If the temperature analysis had extended over the oceanic regions, the association would have likely been weaker because of the lack of prominent contrasts in these regions. Warm fronts were fewer and shorter than other types, representing in many cases stubs ahead of an analyzed cold front with less than compelling indications. In the earlier study a decision was made whether the segment as a whole was or was not associated with a baroclinic zone. The present study may be less subjective. In an attempt to mimic the procedure used in the earlier study, we determined whether each individual frontal segment was or was not associated with a baroclinic zone over at least 50% of its length. The proportions of each frontal type meeting this criterion were 0.53, 0.43, and 0.45 for stationary, cold, and warm segments, respectively. In both studies it is apparent that many analyzed fronts are not assoCorresponding author address: Dr. Frederick Sanders, 9 Flint Street, Marblehead, MA 01945-3716. E-mail: fnmisander@comcast.net AUGUST 2005 F O R E C A S T E R S ’ F O R U M 647