DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of NEXRAD WSR-88D Radar Estimates of Rain Accumulation with Gauge Measurements for High- and Low-Re¯Ectivity Horizontal Gradient Precipitation Events

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of NEXRAD WSR-88D Radar Estimates of Rain Accumulation with Gauge Measurements for High- and Low-Re¯Ectivity Horizontal Gradient Precipitation Events 1842 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 16 NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE A Comparison of NEXRAD WSR-88D Radar Estimates of Rain Accumulation with Gauge Measurements for High- and Low-Re¯ectivity Horizontal Gradient Precipitation Events GERARD E. KLAZURA Environmental Research Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois JESSICA M. THOMALE Oklahoma Climatological Survey, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma D. SCOTT KELLY National Weather Service, Melbourne, Florida PAUL JENDROWSKI National Weather Service, Honolulu, Hawaii 16 June 1998 and 26 March 1999 ABSTRACT Radar-estimated rainfall amounts from the NEXRAD Weather Surveillance Radar precipitation accumulation algorithm were compared with measurements from numerous rain gauges (1639 radar versus gauge comparisons). Storm total rain accumulations from 43 rain events from 10 radar sites were analyzed. These rain events were strati®ed into two precipitation types: 1) high-re¯ectivity horizontal gradient storms and 2) low-re¯ectivity horizontal gradient events. Overall, the radar slightly overestimated rainfall accumulations for high-re¯ectivity gradient cases and signi®cantly underestimated accumulations for low-re¯ectivity gradient cases. Varying degrees of range effects were observed for these two types of precipitation. For high-re¯ectivity gradient cases, the radar underestimated rainfall at the nearest ranges, overestimated at the middle ranges, and had fairly close agreements at the farthest ranges. A much stronger range bias was evident for low-re¯ectivity gradient cases. The radar underestimated rainfall by at least a factor of 2 in the nearest and farthest ranges, and to a somewhat lesser extent at midranges. 1. Introduction gauge for similar time intervals. There were 1639 radar Radar-estimated rainfall amounts from the NEXRAD versus gauge comparisons. These rain events were strat- Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) i®ed into two precipitation types: 25 high-re¯ectivity precipitation accumulation algorithm (Fulton et al. horizontal gradient storm events and 18 low-re¯ectivity 1998; NOAA 1991) were compared with measurements horizontal gradient events. These procedures provided from numerous rain gauges. Comparisons were per- a dramatic improvement over previous WSR-88D ra- formed by using ratios of gauge-measured to radar-es- dar±gauge comparisons (Manion and Klazura 1993) that timated rainfall accumulations (G/R ratios). used the standard graphics display of the Storm Total Storm total rain accumulations from 43 rain events Precipitation product (Klazura and Imy 1993) with only from 10 radar sites were analyzed. Storm total gauge 16 precipitation accumulation data levels and approxi- amounts were compared with radar-estimated rainfall mately 1-in. resolution. amounts at a single data ®le ``bin'' collocated above the This study was conducted in a semiquantitative manner to assess the performance of the WSR-88D precipitation accumulation algorithm in a general sense. It was not meant to be a rigorously objective scienti®c and statistical Corresponding author address: Gerard Klazura, ABLE Project Of- ®ce, 13645 SW Haverhill Rd., Augusta, KS 67010. experiment. However, the strong differences that emerged E-mail: [email protected] between high-re¯ectivity gradient and low-re¯ectivity q 1999 American Meteorological Society NOVEMBER 1999 NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE 1843 TABLE 1. Listing of the sites and number of high-re¯ectivity gra- each, and were therefore eliminated from further anal- dient (HRG) and low-re¯ectivity gradient (LRG) cases used in anal- yses. yses. The letters in parentheses are the station identi®ers used in Tables 2 and 3. The intent for this study was to isolate cases that were primarily either high-re¯ectivity gradient or low-re¯ec- Number of cases tivity gradient in nature throughout the lifetime of the Sites HRG LRG precipitation event (greater than 90% temporally). The Cleveland, OH (CLE) 9 3 high-re¯ectivity gradient category is characterized by Oklahoma City, OK (OKC) 5 5 substantial re¯ectivity cores exceeding 40±60 dBZ, with Boston, MA (BOS) 4 4 sharp re¯ectivity gradients adjacent to the cores. It has Atlanta, GA (ATL) 1 3 cores of radar-estimated storm total precipitation that Chicago, IL (CHI) 3 Denver, CO (DEN) 2 are 5 to 10 times greater than the general accumulations Houston, TX (HGX) 1 over the area and that also have very sharp gradients. Norman, OK (NOR) 1 Figure 1 illustrates an example of a high-re¯ectivity Lubbock, TX (LBB) 1 gradient case as depicted on the storm total precipitation Phoenix, AZ (PHX) 1 product (Fig. 1a) for the Oklahoma City WSR-88D for Totals 25 18 a 6-h, 21-min duration on 4 November 1994, and the base re¯ectivity product (Fig. 1b) for a radar scan within this time interval. gradient cases suggest that reasonably high con®dence The low-re¯ectivity gradient category is character- can be placed on the overall conclusions. ized by fairly widespread re¯ectivities generally 25±40 Standard operational quality control procedures were dBZ with weak re¯ectivity gradients. The radar-esti- followed. Quality control of the radar re¯ectivity data mated storm total precipitation products indicate weak is described in Fulton et al. (1998). An attempt was gradients and areas of maximum precipitation, which made to perform a basic level of quality control of are generally less than ®ve times greater than the general gauge±radar pairs by excluding any nonraining pairs, accumulations over the area. Figure 2 illustrates an ex- that is, any pairs in which either the gauge or radar ample of a low-re¯ectivity gradient case as depicted on rainfall was below a minimum threshold (0.03 in. was the storm total precipitation product (Fig. 2a) for the used as threshold). For example, this would remove any Oklahoma City WSR-88D for a 9-h, 53-min duration pairs in which the gauge received rain but did not record on 29 April 1994, and the base re¯ectivity product (Fig. it due to hardware problems or inaccurate timing and 2b) for a radar scan within this time interval. The higher location speci®cations (e.g., a mismatch of radar and rainfall accumulations depicted in the ring from about gauge clocks or errors in gauge latitude±longitude lo- 30 to 60 n mi (Fig. 2a) may be due to enhanced re- cations). Also, the pair would be excluded if the radar ¯ectivities related to brightband effects. overshot the rain clouds at long ranges, while the gauge Sixteen cases fell into categories 2 and 3 and were recorded rainfall properly. thus eliminated, leaving 25 high-re¯ectivity gradient cases and 18 low-re¯ectivity gradient cases for further analyses. Table 1 shows how these were distributed 2. Analyses procedures and data among the ten WSR-88D sites. Rain gauge data from numerous gauges were provid- Radar base re¯ectivity PPI plots (0.58 tilt) and storm ed by combinations of National Weather Service Fore- total precipitation plots (Klazura and Imy 1993) from cast Of®ces, ALERT networks, and private rain gauge 10 U.S. WSR-88D sites (listed in Table 1) were analyzed networks. for 59 rain events. The magnitudes, gradients, and pat- Digital WSR-88D data ®les of precipitation accu- terns of radar re¯ectivity and radar-estimated rain ac- mulation were produced either by processing archived cumulation were considered in assigning each case as radar re¯ectivity tapes with the precipitation accumu- a speci®c precipitation type. The description of the pre- lation algorithm after the precipitation event or by sav- cipitation type represents a very general characterization ing the precipitation accumulation data ®les immedi- of the dominant radar re¯ectivity and radar-estimated ately after the precipitation event at the site. Standard total precipitation structures as determined from a semi- operational adaptable parameters (Fulton et al. 1998) quantitative visual analysis. were used in all cases, including the use of the Z±R Each precipitation event was assigned to one of four relationship precipitation-type categories: 1) high-re¯ectivity gra- 1.4, dient, 2) early high-re¯ectivity gradient±later low-re- Z 5 300R ¯ectivity gradient, 3) low-re¯ectivity gradient with em- where Z has units of mm6 m23 and R is in mm h21.By bedded high-re¯ectivity gradient, and 4) low-re¯ectivity using these data ®les, the analytical procedure generated gradient. Categories 2 and 3 include characteristics of a53 5 matrix of ``bins'' of radar-derived storm total both high-re¯ectivity gradient and low-re¯ectivity gra- rainfall accumulation depth centered over each gauge. dient, with varying spatial and temporal in¯uences of Each of the 25 bins has a spatial resolution of 2-km 1844 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 16 FIG. 1. (a) Oklahoma City, OK, WSR-88D storm total precipitation and (b) base re¯ectivity products on 4 Nov 1994 for range coverage of 124 n mi (230 km). (a) 1136±1757 UTC. Resolution is 1.1 n mi 3 1.1nmi(2km3 2 km). Maps displayed are range rings at 30 n mi (55.65 km) intervals, radial sector NOVEMBER 1999 NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE 1845 radial distance by 18 azimuth angle (about 2 km 3 2 ber of gauges in the network. The entries are listed km at 115-km range from radar) and an accumulation according to ascending order of the G/R ratios. resolution of 0.01 in. The width of the 18 bin varies Very different relationships exist between G/R and from about 0.3 km at close ranges (20 km) to 4 km at the two precipitation types. The corresponding means the maximum range (230 km) of radar rainfall estimates of the G/R values were 0.88 for the high-re¯ectivity (Fulton et al. 1998). gradient cases (computed from 840 G±R pairs in 25 For this study, the radar bin that was selected to be cases), which indicates a slight radar overestimate, and compared with each gauge is the bin collocated with 2.23 for the low-re¯ectivity gradient cases (computed the gauge (closest to the latitude and longitude of the from 799 G±R pairs in 18 cases), which indicates a associated gauge) and located in the center of the 5 3 signi®cant radar underestimate.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lesson 6 Weather: Collecting Data GRADE 3-5 BACKGROUND Meteorologists Collect Weather Data Daily to Make Forecasts
    Lesson 6 Weather: Collecting Data GRADE 3-5 BACKGROUND Meteorologists collect weather data daily to make forecasts. With the aid of high altitude weather balloons, weather equipment and gauges, satellites, and computers, accurate daily forecasts can be made. Collecting weather data in just one location and making a forecast requires a great deal of skill. Since air travels from one location to another, it is helpful to know what the approaching weather will be. In this investigation, the students will collect data for two weeks. At this time they will start seeing patterns in each of the areas. They can predict what the weather will be like the next day and for the next few days. They will also write if their predictions were correct from the previous day. Collecting the data for this lesson can be done instead of collecting the data separately in lesson 1-4. BASIC LESSON Objective(s) Students will be able to… Collect data for two weeks and use the information to detect patterns and predict weather around their location. State Science Content Standard(s) Standard 4. Students through the inquiry process, demonstrate knowledge of the composition, structures, processes and interactions of Earth's systems and other objects in space. A. 4.4 Observe and describe the water cycle and the local weather and demonstrate how weather conditions are measured. A. Record temperature B. Display data on a graph C. Interpret trends and patterns of data D. Identify and explain the use of a barometer, weather vane, and anemometer E. Collect, record and chart data from each weather instrument F.
    [Show full text]
  • Snow Nowcasting Using a Real-Time Correlation of Radar Reflectivity
    20 JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY VOLUME 42 Snow Nowcasting Using a Real-Time Correlation of Radar Re¯ectivity with Snow Gauge Accumulation ROY RASMUSSEN AND MICHAEL DIXON National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado STEVE VASILOFF National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma FRANK HAGE,SHELLY KNIGHT,J.VIVEKANANDAN, AND MEI XU National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado (Manuscript received 21 November 2001, in ®nal form 13 June 2002) ABSTRACT This paper describes and evaluates an algorithm for nowcasting snow water equivalent (SWE) at a point on the surface based on a real-time correlation of equivalent radar re¯ectivity (Ze) with snow gauge rate (S). It is shown from both theory and previous results that Ze±S relationships vary signi®cantly during a storm and from storm to storm, requiring a real-time correlation of Ze and S. A key element of the algorithm is taking into account snow drift and distance of the radar volume from the snow gauge. The algorithm was applied to a number of New York City snowstorms and was shown to have skill in nowcasting SWE out to at least 1 h when compared with persistence. The algorithm is currently being used in a real-time winter weather nowcasting system, called Weather Support to Deicing Decision Making (WSDDM), to improve decision making regarding the deicing of aircraft and runway clearing. The algorithm can also be used to provide a real-time Z±S relationship for Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) if a well-shielded snow gauge is available to measure real-time SWE rate and appropriate range corrections are made.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantitative Interpretation of Laser Ceilometer Intensity Profiles
    396 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 14 Quantitative Interpretation of Laser Ceilometer Intensity Pro®les R. R. ROGERS AND M.-F. LAMOUREUX Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada L. R. BISSONNETTE Defence Research Establishment Valcartier, Courcelette, Quebec, Canada R. M. PETERS Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania (Manuscript received 23 July 1996, in ®nal form 28 October 1996) ABSTRACT The authors have used a commercially available laser ceilometer to measure vertical pro®les of the optical extinction in rain. This application requires special signal processing to correct the raw data for the effects of receiver noise, high-pass ®ltering, and the incomplete overlap of the transmitted beam with the receiver ®eld of view at close range. The calibration constant of the ceilometer, denoted by C, is determined from the pro®le of the corrected returned power in conditions of moderate attenuation in which the power is completely extin- guished over a distance on the order of 1 km. In this determination, the value of the backscatter-to-extinction ratio k of the scattering medium must be speci®ed and an allowance made for the effects of multiple scattering. These requirements impose an uncertainty on C that can amount to 650%. An alternative to determining the calibration constant is explained, which does not require specifying k, although it assumes that k is constant with height. Using this alternative approach, the authors have estimated many extinction pro®les in rain and compared them with radar re¯ectivity pro®les measured with a UHF boundary layer wind pro®ler.
    [Show full text]
  • Radar Derived Rainfall and Rain Gauge Measurements at SRS
    Radar Derived Rainfall and Rain Gauge Measurements at SRS A. M. Rivera-Giboyeaux February 2020 SRNL-STI-2019-00644, Revision 0 SRNL-STI-2019-00644 Revision 0 DISCLAIMER This work was prepared under an agreement with and funded by the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government or its employees, nor any of its contractors, subcontractors or their employees, makes any express or implied: 1. warranty or assumes any legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or for the use or results of such use of any information, product, or process disclosed; or 2. representation that such use or results of such use would not infringe privately owned rights; or 3. endorsement or recommendation of any specifically identified commercial product, process, or service. Any views and opinions of authors expressed in this work do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, or its contractors, or subcontractors. Printed in the United States of America Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy ii SRNL-STI-2019-00644 Revision 0 Keywords: Rainfall, Radar, Rain Gauge, Measurements Retention: Permanent Radar Derived Rainfall and Rain Gauge Measurements at SRS A. M. Rivera-Giboyeaux February 2020 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC09-08SR22470. iii SRNL-STI-2019-00644 Revision 0 REVIEWS AND APPROVALS AUTHORS: ______________________________________________________________________________ A. M. Rivera-Giboyeaux, Atmospheric Technologies Group, SRNL Date TECHNICAL REVIEW: ______________________________________________________________________________ S. Weinbeck, Atmospheric Technologies Group, SRNL. Reviewed per E7 2.60 Date APPROVAL: ______________________________________________________________________________ C.H. Hunter, Manager Date Atmospheric Technologies Group iv SRNL-STI-2019-00644 Revision 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the years rainfall data for the Savannah River Site has been obtained from ground level measurements made by rain gauges.
    [Show full text]
  • COOP Observer Manual (1).Pdf
    National Weather Service WFO Mount Holly, NJ Cooperative Observation Program Observer Manual Updated: October 3, 2020 Table of Contents 1. Taking Observations a. Rainfall/Liquid Equivalent Precipitation i. Rainfall 1. Standard 8” Rain Gauge 2. Plastic 4” Rain Gauge ii. Snowfall/Frozen Precipitation Liquid Equivalent 1. Standard 8” Rain Gauge 2. Plastic 4” Rain Gauge b. Snowfall c. Snow Depth d. Maximum and Minimum Temperatures (if equipped) i. Digital Maximum/Minimum Sensor with Nimbus Display ii. Cotton Region Shelter with Liquid-in-Glass Thermometers 2. Reporting Observations a. WxCoder b. Things to Remember 1 1. Taking Observations Measuring precipitation is one of the most basic and useful forms of weather observations. It is important to note that observations will vary based on the type of precipitation that is expected to occur. If any frozen precipitation is forecast, it is important to remove the ​ funnel top and inner tube from your gauge before precipitation begins. This will prevent ​ ​ ​ damage to the equipment and ensure the most accurate measurements possible. Note that the inner tube of the rain gauge only holds a certain amount of precipitation until it begins to overflow into the outer can. If rain falls, but is not measurable inside of the gauge, this should be reported as a Trace (T) of rainfall. This includes sprinkles/drizzle and occurrences where there is some liquid in the inner tube, but it is not measurable on the measuring stick. During the cold season (generally November through early April), we recommend that observers leave their snowboards outside at all times, if possible.
    [Show full text]
  • METAR/SPECI Reporting Changes for Snow Pellets (GS) and Hail (GR)
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION N JO 7900.11 NOTICE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Effective Date: Air Traffic Organization Policy September 1, 2018 Cancellation Date: September 1, 2019 SUBJ: METAR/SPECI Reporting Changes for Snow Pellets (GS) and Hail (GR) 1. Purpose of this Notice. This Notice coincides with a revision to the Federal Meteorological Handbook (FMH-1) that was effective on November 30, 2017. The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) approved the changes to the reporting requirements of small hail and snow pellets in weather observations (METAR/SPECI) to assist commercial operators in deicing operations. 2. Audience. This order applies to all FAA and FAA-contract weather observers, Limited Aviation Weather Reporting Stations (LAWRS) personnel, and Non-Federal Observation (NF- OBS) Program personnel. 3. Where can I Find This Notice? This order is available on the FAA Web site at http://faa.gov/air_traffic/publications and http://employees.faa.gov/tools_resources/orders_notices/. 4. Cancellation. This notice will be cancelled with the publication of the next available change to FAA Order 7900.5D. 5. Procedures/Responsibilities/Action. This Notice amends the following paragraphs and tables in FAA Order 7900.5. Table 3-2: Remarks Section of Observation Remarks Section of Observation Element Paragraph Brief Description METAR SPECI Volcanic eruptions must be reported whenever first noted. Pre-eruption activity must not be reported. (Use Volcanic Eruptions 14.20 X X PIREPs to report pre-eruption activity.) Encode volcanic eruptions as described in Chapter 14. Distribution: Electronic 1 Initiated By: AJT-2 09/01/2018 N JO 7900.11 Remarks Section of Observation Element Paragraph Brief Description METAR SPECI Whenever tornadoes, funnel clouds, or waterspouts begin, are in progress, end, or disappear from sight, the event should be described directly after the "RMK" element.
    [Show full text]
  • Gauge and Radarradargauge
    GaGaugugeeaandndRRaadadarr PPaaoo--LLiaiangngChaChangng CentCentrarallWWeaeattherherBBurureaeau,u,TTaaiwiwaann A Training Course on Quantitative Precipitation Estimation/Forecasting (QPE/QPF) Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria, Quezon City, Philippines 27-30 March 2012 OOuutlitlinnee RaRadadarraandndGGaaugugeeNetNetwwoorkrkininTTaaiwiwaann RaRadadarrDaDattaaQQCCususingingRefReflectlectivivitityyaandnd RaRainfinfaallllClimClimaattoolologgyy RaRadadarrQQPPEEaandndGGaaugugee--cocorrrrectectededQQPPEE OOututloloookk 2 OOppeerratiationonalalRRadadararNNeetwtwororkkiinnTTaiaiwwanan RRCCWWFF RRCCCCKK RRCCHHLL RRCCMMKK RRCCCCGG RRCCKKTT CCWBWB::RRCCWFWF,,RRCCHHLL,,RRCCKKTT,,RRCCCCGG((DDopoppplleerr,,wwaveavelleenngtgthh::10c10cmm)) AAiirrFFororccee::RRCCCCKK,,RRCCMMKK((dduualal--ppololarariizzatatiionon,,wwaveavelleenngtgthh::5c5cmm)) Taiwan operational radar network basic information RCWF RCHL RCCG RCKT RCCK RCMK Observation Range (km) 460,230 460,230 460,230 460,230 460,160 460,160 (Z,Vr) Gematronik Gematronik Gematronik Gematronik Gematronik Type WSR-88D 1500S 1500S 1500S 1500C 1500C Height (m) 766 63 38 42 203 48 Wavelength (cm) 10 10 10 10 5 5 Polarization Single Single Single Single Dual Dual Max. Unambiguous 26.55 21.15 21.15 49.5 49.5 49.5 Velocity (m/s) GGaaugugeeStStaattioionsns inin TTaaiwiwaann Data from CWB and Gov. agencies (WRA, SWCB,TPC,..) •All Gauge stations ~570 stations •Overland ~560 stations MMeaeannGGaaugugeeSpaSpacingcing ffrroommCWBCWBSitSiteses((dadattaainin22000077)) Number of Gauges CoConceptnceptooffRefReflectlectivivitityyClimClimaattoolologgyy
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Comments the Authors Thank the Reviewers for Their
    Response to comments The authors thank the reviewers for their constructive comments, which provide the basis to improve the quality of the manuscript and dataset. We address all points in detail and reply to all comments here below. We also updated SCDNA from V1 to V1.1 on Zenodo based on the reviewer’s comments. The modifications include adding station source flag, adding original files for location merged stations, and adding a quality control procedure based on the final SCDNA. SCDNA estimates are generally consistent between the two versions, with the total number of stations reduced from 27280 to 27276. Reviewer 1 General comment The manuscript presents and advertises a very interesting dataset of temperature and precipitation observation collected over several years in North America. The work is certainly well suited for the readership of ESSD and it is overall very important for the meteorological and climatological community. Furthermore, creation of quality controlled databases is an important contribution to the scientific community in the age of data science. I have a few points to consider before publication, which I recommend, listed below. 1. Measurement instruments: from my background, I am much closer to the instruments themselves (and their peculiarities and issues), as hardware tools. What I missed here was a description of the stations and their instruments. Questions like: which are the instruments deployed in the stations? How is precipitation measured (tipping buckets? buckets? Weighing gauges? Note for example that some instruments may have biases when measuring snowfall while others may not)? How is it temperature measured? How is this different from station to station in your database? Response: We have added the descriptions of measurement instruments in both the manuscript and dataset documentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ott Parsivel - Enhanced Precipitation Identifier for Present Weather, Drop Size Distribution and Radar Reflectivity - Ott Messtechnik, Germany
    ® OTT PARSIVEL - ENHANCED PRECIPITATION IDENTIFIER FOR PRESENT WEATHER, DROP SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND RADAR REFLECTIVITY - OTT MESSTECHNIK, GERMANY Kurt Nemeth1, Martin Löffler-Mang2 1 OTT Messtechnik GmbH & Co. KG, Kempten (Germany) 2 HTW, Saarbrücken (Germany) as a laser-optic enhanced precipitation identifier and present weather sensor. The patented extinction method for simultaneous measurements of particle size and velocity of all liquid and solid precipitation employs a direct physical measurement principle and classification of hydrometeors. The instrument provides a full picture of precipitation events during any kind of weather phenomenon and provides accurate reporting of precipitation types, accumulation and intensities without degradation of per- formance in severe outdoor environments. Parsivel® operates in any climate regime and the built-in heating device minimizes the negative effect of freezing and frozen precipitation accreting critical surfaces on the instrument. Parsivel® can be integrated into an Automated Surface/ Weather Observing System (ASOS/AWOS) as part of the sensor suite. The derived data can be processed and 1. Introduction included into transmitted weather observation reports and messages (WMO, SYNOP, METAR and NWS codes). ® OTT Parsivel : Laser based optical Disdrometer for 1.2. Performance, accuracy and calibration procedure simultaneous measurement of PARticle SIze and VELocity of all liquid and solid precipitation. This state The new generation of Parsivel® disdrometer provides of the art instrument, designed to operate under all the latest state of the art optical laser technology. Each weather conditions, is capable of fulfilling multiple hydrometeor, which falls through the measuring area is meteorological applications: present weather sensing, measured simultaneously for size and velocity with an optical precipitation gauging, enhanced precipitation acquisition cycle of 50 kHz.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded 09/24/21 04:33 AM UTC APRIL 2013 F R I E D R I C H E T a L
    1182 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 141 Drop-Size Distributions in Thunderstorms Measured by Optical Disdrometers during VORTEX2 KATJA FRIEDRICH AND EVAN A. KALINA University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado FORREST J. MASTERS AND CARLOS R. LOPEZ University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida (Manuscript received 13 April 2012, in final form 22 October 2012) ABSTRACT When studying the influence of microphysics on the near-surface buoyancy tendency in convective thun- derstorms, in situ measurements of microphysics near the surface are essential and those are currently not provided by most weather radars. In this study, the deployment of mobile microphysical probes in con- vective thunderstorms during the second Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment (VORTEX2) is examined. Microphysical probes consist of an optical Ott Particle Size and Velocity (PARSIVEL) disdrometer that measures particle size and fall velocity distributions and a surface obser- vation station that measures wind, temperature, and humidity. The mobile probe deployment allows for targeted observations within various areas of the storm and coordinated observations with ground-based mobile radars. Quality control schemes necessary for providing reliable observations in severe environ- ments with strong winds and high rainfall rates and particle discrimination schemes for distinguishing be- tween hail, rain, and graupel are discussed. It is demonstrated how raindrop-size distributions for selected cases can be applied to study size-sorting and microphysical processes. The study revealed that the raindrop-size distribution changes rapidly in time and space in convective thunderstorms. Graupel, hailstones, and large raindrops were primarily observed close to the updraft region of thunderstorms in the forward- and rear-flank downdrafts and in the reflectivity hook appendage.
    [Show full text]
  • Radar Artifacts and Associated Signatures, Along with Impacts of Terrain on Data Quality
    Radar Artifacts and Associated Signatures, Along with Impacts of Terrain on Data Quality 1.) Introduction: The WSR-88D (Weather Surveillance Radar designed and built in the 80s) is the most useful tool used by National Weather Service (NWS) Meteorologists to detect precipitation, calculate its motion, estimate its type (rain, snow, hail, etc) and forecast its position. Radar stands for “Radio, Detection, and Ranging”, was developed in the 1940’s and used during World War II, has gone through numerous enhancements and technological upgrades to help forecasters investigate storms with greater detail and precision. However, as our ability to detect areas of precipitation, including rotation within thunderstorms has vastly improved over the years, so has the radar’s ability to detect other significant meteorological and non meteorological artifacts. In this article we will identify these signatures, explain why and how they occur and provide examples from KTYX and KCXX of both meteorological and non meteorological data which WSR-88D detects. KTYX radar is located on the Tug Hill Plateau near Watertown, NY while, KCXX is located in Colchester, VT with both operated by the NWS in Burlington. Radar signatures to be shown include: bright banding, tornadic hook echo, low level lake boundary, hail spikes, sunset spikes, migrating birds, Route 7 traffic, wind farms, and beam blockage caused by terrain and the associated poor data sampling that occurs. 2.) How Radar Works: The WSR-88D operates by sending out directional pulses at several different elevation angles, which are microseconds long, and when the pulse intersects water droplets or other artifacts, a return signal is sent back to the radar.
    [Show full text]
  • Observer Bias in Daily Precipitation Measurements at United States Cooperative Network Stations
    Observer Bias in Daily Precipitation Measurements at United States Cooperative Network Stations BY CHRISTOPHER DALY, WAYNE P. G IBSON, GEORGE H. TAYLOR, MATTHEW K. DOGGETT, AND JOSEPH I. SMITH The vast majority of United States cooperative observers introduce subjective biases into their measurements of daily precipitation. he Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) was the U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN). The established in the 1890s to make daily meteo- USHCN provides much of the country’s official data T rological observations across the United States, on climate trends and variability over the past century primarily for agricultural purposes. The COOP (Karl et al. 1990; Easterling et al. 1999; Williams et al. network has since become the backbone of tempera- 2004). ture and precipitation data that characterize means, Precipitation data (rain and melted snow) are trends, and extremes in U.S. climate. COOP data recorded manually every day by over 12,000 COOP are routinely used in a wide variety of applications, observers across the United States. The measuring such as agricultural planning, environmental impact equipment is very simple, and has not changed statements, road and dam safety regulations, building appreciably since the network was established. codes, forensic meteorology, water supply forecasting, Precipitation data from most COOP sites are read weather forecast model initialization, climate map- from a calibrated stick placed into a narrow tube ping, flood hazard assessment, and many others. A within an 8-in.-diameter rain gauge, much like subset of COOP stations with relatively complete, the oil level is measured in an automobile (Fig. 1). long periods of record, and few station moves forms The National Weather Service COOP Observing Handbook (NOAA–NWS 1989) describes the procedure for measuring precipitation from 8-in.
    [Show full text]