Precipitation Estimates, Part 1 - Measurement

Precipitation Estimates, Part 1: Measurement
Produced by The COMET® Program
Navigation Menu
I. Introduction
In this lesson on the estimation of observed precipitation we will review the science of precipitation measurement using
various platforms. Accurate estimates of both the spatial and temporal distribution of observed precipitation are important
for input to river and flash flood models, for forecasting of high impact hydrometeorological events, and for analysis and
forecasts of drought and water supply. Topics in this module include: the meaning of Quantitative Precipitation Estimation
(QPE), measurement tools for estimating observed precipitation, and using climatology in precipitation estimates.
A basic understanding of how radar and satellite are used to estimate observed precipitation is needed to understand the
information in this module. The NOAA/NWS Warning Decision Training Division (WDTD) produced the Radar and
Applications Course (RAC): http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/rac/outline.php. This course will assist with refreshing your
radar meteorology knowledge. In particular, part 5 focuses on precipitation products.
An overview of the WSR88D system is available as well for those completely unfamiliar with Doppler radar:
http://www.roc.noaa.gov/WSR88D/.
At the time of publication of this module, the HydroEstimator is currently used by National Weather Service operations to
provide precipitation estimates based on infrared (IR) satellite. Products like this one can be found at NOAA's Hydro
Estimator Products page: http://http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/ff/HydroEst.php.
A VisitView webcast is available for those seeking more detailed information about satellitederived precipitation
estimation with the HydroEstimator:
http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/training/visit/training_sessions/the_satellite_rainfall_hydroestimator/.
I. Introduction » What is Precipitation Estimation (QPE)?
The term Quantitative Precipitation Estimation, or QPE, refers to the estimation of observed precipitation.
This is different than a forecast of precipitation which is referred to as a Quantitative Precipitation Forecast, or QPF.
You may wonder why precipitation is only an estimate if it is “observed.” Observed precipitation is only an estimate
because the tools used provide inexact approximations of the actual magnitude and distribution of precipitation.
I. Introduction » QPE Methods and Tools
Radar is a remote sensing QPE tool with excellent spatial and temporal resolution. However, radar coverage may be
inconsistent from place to place and from storm to storm.
Satellite is another remote sensing QPE tool, but with much coarser resolution than radar.
Even rain gauges, which are groundbased measurements, are subject to errors and cannot resolve the spatial detail of
precipitation patterns.
A precipitation climatology is sometimes used to augment the estimates of observed precipitation. This can be very useful
in regions where precipitation distribution, and the ability to observe it, is greatly affected by terrain features.
The Parameterelevation Regressions on an Independent Slopes Model, or PRISM, provides a commonlyused
precipitation climatology tool. For more information on precipitation climatology guidance from Parameterelevation
Regressions on an Independent Slopes Model (PRISM), see: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/.
I. Introduction » In This Module
Measurement technologies like radar, satellite, and rain gauges will continue to evolve and improve. The focus of this
module is to provide you with the background to make choices about when to use certain observing platforms. Section II
looks at the remotelysensed observed precipitation from weather radar and satellite, including the use of radar
precipitation climatology; Section III explores the use of rain gauges; Section IV reviews tools based on precipitation
climatologies, such as the information available from PRISM. Finally, Section V summarizes precipitation measurements.
I. Introduction » Review Questions
Question 1
The primary benefit of radarderived precipitation guidance is that it provides _____.
Choose the best answer.
a) good coverage in mountainous terrain
b) consistent coverage from one location to another
c) good resolution in space and time
d) all of the above
The correct answer is c.
Question 2
Rain gauge observations are not really QPE because rather than being “estimations,” they are real groundbased reports.
a) True
b) False
The correct answer is b.
Question 3
PRISM climatology data may be particularly useful for supplementing the data in which area?
a) Areas with good radar coverage
b) Coastal locations
c) Mountainous regions
d) Regions with poor climate record
II. Remote Sensing of QPE
Precipitation accumulation is routinely derived from radar and satellite observations. Despite the inconsistencies in radar
derived precipitation from location to location and from season to season, radar guidance is considered superior to satellite
guidance of QPE in many areas. This is mainly due to the superior resolution in both space and time and often better
quantitative guidance.
Topics in this section include the relationship between drop size distribution, the ZR relationship, and derived rainfall; the
impact of snow on radarderived estimates, the potential QPE improvement with polarimetric radar, radar coverage issues,
and the concept of radar climatology. A brief summary of issues regarding satellitederived QPE will follow the radar
sections.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » ReflectivityRainfall Rate (ZR) and Drop Size Distribution (DSD)
Radar reflectivity (Z), expressed in units of dBZ, is used to compute rainfall rates (R) in mm/h using a reflectivity to rainfall
rate relationship. This is known as the ZR relationship. Rainfall rates then get integrated over time to produce
accumulation for various time periods.
The relationship between reflectivity and rainfall rate, and thus the ZR relationship, varies with time, location, and season.
Hydrometeor properties that influence the ZR relationship include size, concentration, and phase. Accuracy of derived
rainfall rates is further impacted by the presence of nonhydrometeors, and whether the radar is sampling a region that is
representative of precipitation reaching the ground.
Hydrometeor shape, which is related to hydrometeor size and phase, is also important information for understanding the
relationship between reflectivity and precipitation rates. Large liquid drops are more oblate in shape than smaller ones. For
horizontallypolarized radars like the WSR88D, greater horizontal diameters reflect more energy back to the radar. This
results in greater derived rainfall rates.
Even relatively small 13mm (halfinch) diameter hailstones contribute greatly to radar reflectivity. That’s why the presence
of hail results in anomalously high derivedrainfall rates. This anomaly is typically minimized through use of rainfall rate
thresholds.
In Depth: Reflectivity Factor, Z
Z = ∫ N(D) D6 dD
Z = reflectivity factor
D = drop diameter
N(D) = number of drops of given diameter per cubic meter
This equation is presented to explain the sensitivity of reflectivity factor, Z, to drop diameter. Because the drop diameter is
raised to the 6th power, small changes in drop diameter result in very large changes to Z. And large changes to Z result in
large changes to derived rainfall rates.
Drop size distribution (DSD) refers to the size and concentration of drops in a volume, say a cubic meter. Here we show
two DSDs.
The radar is more sensitive to the horizontal diameter of the hydrometeors than it is to the concentration of hydrometeors.
Therefore, a small number of large hydrometeors can result in the same reflectivity value as a very large number of smaller
drops. But the DSD on the right is producing greater rainfall rates. The two DSDs should therefore be represented by
different ZR relationships.
The DSD can vary significantly and quickly in both space and time. This means that it may be appropriate to have more
than one ZR relationship in effect at the same time. As of this writing, the NOAA National Mosaic and Multisensor QPE
(NMQ) radar precipitation product can utilize numerous ZR relationships based on atmospheric conditions.
Here we have a region with a squall line that most likely has a DSD consistent with convective rainfall. Nearby stratiform
precipitation will exhibit a different DSD and should be associated with a different ZR relationship than the convective
area. As the precipitation system moves, the ZR relationship at any one location should change with time.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Reflectivity and Snow
As snowflakes begin to melt, a coating of water can make them “appear” as very large raindrops to the radar. This can
cause very high reflectivity and overestimated rainfall rates at the ground below where the radar is sampling the melting
layer aloft.
Pure snowflakes and crystals violate the assumption of liquid hydrometeors that go into the ZR equation. However,
several research institutions are working on radarderived snowfall including ZS, or reflectivity snowfall rate relationships.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Precipitation Estimates with Dual Polarimetric Radar
Advances are made in radar technology every year. As this lesson is being developed the most promising with respect to
precipitation is dual polarized radar, or polarimetric radar.
A network of polarimetric radars promises to alleviate some of the errors associated with the phase, size, and distribution of
hydrometeors. Ultimately, this means the problems associated with inappropriate ZR conversions should be minimized.
Excellent training on precipitation measurement using polarimetric radar is available from NOAA’s WDTD. We will not
repeat those lessons here, but we strongly encourage you to review them:
http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dualpol/Outreach/.
The basic premise behind polarimetric radar is that in addition to reflectivity estimates that we are familiar with, it estimates
the shapes of hydrometeors. This is accomplished by using both a horizontally and a vertically polarized radar beam. By
measuring the different returns from these two polarizations, one can estimate the shape and the effects from different
hydrometeor shapes.
For example, we can determine if the prominent reflectors are large raindrops, which tend to be oblate with a large
horizontal axis. We can also determine if the hydrometeors are more spherical, consistent with small raindrops. Or we can
measure if the hydrometeors are highly reflective and generally spherical, consistent with hail. Other measures can be
used to estimate the presence of snow, insects, or ground targets.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Radar Sampling of Precipitation
Most of the discussion so far is applicable for areas with good radar coverage. Good radar coverage is determined by three
main factors:
1. There are no obstructions of the lowlevel radar beam from terrain features or other ground targets like buildings.
2. Precipitation systems extend through a deep portion of the troposphere, as we see with convective storms.
3. The density of radar sites is sufficient. In other words, the radars are close enough to each other so that all radar
sampling is occurring in the low levels of the atmosphere.
The radar beam gets higher in the atmosphere with distance from the radar. Even a low tilt angle like 0.5° is ~1.5 km (5,000
ft) above the ground at 100 km from the radar, and 5.2 km (17,000 ft) high at 230 km. Therefore, to sample the lowlevel
precipitation, which is most likely to be representative of the precipitation reaching the ground, radars need to be close to
each other.
For stratiform precipitation it is best to sample the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere, which typically occurs within 50 km of the
radar. Beyond 50 km the radar sample may be questionable. This range can be limited further by terrain blocking of the
radar beam. Sampling of stratiform precipitation is almost always poor beyond 100 km from the radar.
Convective precipitation is distributed over a much deeper layer of the atmosphere than stratiform precipitation. Therefore,
in seasons and locations where convection is common and terrain is minimal, the radar may be able to sample
precipitation well at long distance from the radar, perhaps beyond 150 km. Shallow convection may be undersampled by
the radar at closer ranges than 150 km. Range coverage is worse for snow.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Radar Coverage
Here are the NWS radar locations with the ideal 230km range shown with yellow circles. The density of weather radars is
generally lower in the western United States and Alaska than in other parts of the country. These maps do not account for
terrain features that can greatly reduce the radar coverage.
For many locations and precipitation regimes, it’s unrealistic to expect good precipitation estimates with the ideal 230km
coverage shown here. A more realistic radius of 100 or 150km would show bigger and more numerous gaps, especially in
the Western United States. In the winter, the range of realistic coverage may shrink to less than a 100 km radius.
A more realistic coverage is shown here with a map of the height above ground level (AGL) of the radar sampling. It is for
November 10th, 2008. Although this map can change depending on weather conditions and radar operations, the basic
pattern will be the same.
The light blues show where there is good coverage of the low levels. The best low level coverage is obviously in areas with
relatively flat terrain and good radar density. Recall that for stratiform precipitation, radar coverage can be significantly
impacted if the radar sampling is 1 km or more above the ground, as shown in the dark blue, greens, yellows, and reds.
Even in the central and eastern U.S., stratiform precipitation may be significantly underestimated in places. In the West,
radar sampling can be more than 3 km above the ground in large areas. This results in completely missing precipitation
systems, especially stratiform. This is also a problem in Alaska. As an example let’s look more closely at radar coverage in
the northwestern portion of the contiguous United States.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Radar Climatology
To account for the geographic and seasonal variability, the NWS has radar coverage maps. Here we see the warmseason
effective radar coverage for the Northwest. The colorshaded areas are where radar climatology shows good coverage
from at least one radar. The individual colors depict which radar the “good” coverage will come from. For example, the
white area shows where radar estimates would come from the radar at Boise, Idaho, KCBX.
KCBX is considered good here because 1) that radar is able to sample precipitation, and 2) in areas of overlap with
neighboring radars, KCBX is sampling from a lower elevation. The jagged appearance is caused by mountains preventing
uniform good coverage throughout the entire 230km radius.
These are produced by the NWS radar climatology program, RADCLIM. (For more information on RADCLIM, see
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/papers/2001mou/chapter3_app.pdf.) We will briefly demonstrate radar climatology based
on frequency of occurrence of precipitation for Boise, Idaho.
The precipitation frequency of occurrence starts with a precipitation threshold for defining what we will consider
precipitation. Let’s use a threshold of 0.0 mm which means that any time there is more than 0.0 mm detected by the radar,
we have a precipitation event. We could choose a higher threshold if we want to filter out light events.
The frequency of precipitation, for each radar bin, is the number of times more than 0.0 mm was observed divided by all of
the radar observations in the data set. We get this image for the Boise radar. The radar is in the center of the 230km radius
of ideal radar coverage.
The different colors show the different frequencies of occurrence. As distance increases from the radar the frequency of
precipitation decreases, indicated by blue and black colors. Note the large areas with very low frequencies of occurrence,
seen as black. These do not represent natural precipitation distribution. Rather, it shows where the radar sampling is
greatly inhibited by terrain blocking.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Radar Coverage Map
So now we want to choose a precipitation frequency threshold to represent effective radar coverage. In other words, we will
say, “only when precipitation occurred at least this often, will we trust the radar estimates.”
In this example, a frequency of occurrence of 0.006 was chosen. This means that we will only consider radar bins where
greater than 0.0 mm occurred at least 0.006, or 0.6% of the time according to the radar climatology.
This is all nonblack shaded areas shown on the radar coverage map as white shading. So the white shading is where we
assume good radar coverage. We should assume bad coverage in the black areas. In the black areas, precipitation
estimates should come from other radars or other sources such as rain gauges and satellite.
The choice of frequency threshold is somewhat subjective, based on forecaster experience regarding what produces the
most useful guidance.
Radar climatologies are generated for specific months or seasons. Let’s go back to the summer season radar coverage for
the northwestern portion of the contiguous United States. All of the nonblack areas are where we can assume good radar
coverage. Again, here is the Boise coverage area that we just talked about. So the white shading is where we can assume
good coverage.
In the cool season, there is more low level precipitation and thus the effects of terrain and distance on radar precipitation
estimates are more severe. Note the sharp decrease in good radar coverage in the radar coverage map for the Northwest
in the cool season.
These types of radar coverage maps, based on radar climatology, are used in MPE to determine where radarderived data
should be used.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Satellite QPE
Satellite estimation of precipitation is potentially useful in areas with poor coverage from radars and rain gauges. Although
satellite sampling is more consistent from place to place than radar sampling, satellitederived precipitation is lower
resolution and generally less accurate than radarderived precipitation. It is therefore considered a supplement, not a
replacement for the radar products.
Satellitederived rainfall products perform best in the tropics and in the middle latitudes during the warm season. In other
words it verifies best when the wind shear is relatively low and precipitation is dominated by convection. These are not the
conditions in the radarsparse western United States during the wintertime wet season.
This NOAA product known as the hydroestimator applies a terrain factor to the precipitation estimate using 700 mb winds.
This helps with resolving the spatial distribution of the precipitation. Other improvements to precipitation rates may be
achieved by applying factors related to cloud, moisture, and stability characteristics.
For satellite HydroEstimator rainfall products: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/ff/HydroEst.php
In addition to adjustments based on both measured and modeled environmental properties, there is increasing use of
additional sensor capabilities such as microwave satellite sensing and lightning detection. Passive microwave
observations allow detection of water and ice within the cloud for derivation of more accurate rainfall rates. However,
because microwave sensing capabilities are specific to polarorbiting satellites, the temporal frequency is much less than
that of the hydroestimator products based on geostationary satellites.
The SCaMPR product, (which stands for SelfCalibrating Multivariate Precipitation Retrieval) is an example of combining
the temporal resolution of geostationary satellites with the more accurate estimation of rainfall rates of polar orbiters, and
previews the next generation of operational satellitebased precipitation estimation tools.
For more information on efforts pertaining to real time satellitebased precipitation estimation at NOAA, please see:
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/ff/index.html.
For more information about ongoing efforts to develop synergistic precipitation products which combine the accuracy of
microwave products with the temporal advantages of geostationary observations, please see the COMET module entitled
“Microwave Remote Sensing: Clouds, Precipitation, and Water Vapor”:
http://www.meted.ucar.edu/npoess/microwave_topics/clouds_precip_water_vapor/.
Future multisatellite precipitation products will also benefit from the new constellation of polarorbiting satellites, known as
the GPM, or Global Precipitation Measurement mission.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Remote Sensing QPE Key Points
Radar data, where available, provide the best resolution in space and time.
The best radar coverage occurs with convective precipitation, liquid precipitation, and in regions with minimal
terrain features.
Errors in radarderived precipitation are associated with variations in drop size distributions, precipitation phase,
and lack of lowlevel information.
Dualpolarized radars estimate hydrometeor shapes, and should assist with developing more accurate precipitation
products.
Satellitederived precipitation is a supplement in regions with poor radar and rain gauge coverage.
II. Remote Sensing of QPE » Review Questions
Question 1
The greatest advantage of radarderived rainfall estimates is their _____.
a) consistent coverage over a large area
b) high resolution in space and time
c) reliable point estimates for remote areas
d) reliable results for both rain and snow
Question 2
Radar precipitation estimates are likely to be most accurate for _____.
Choose all that apply.
a) deep, convective cloud systems
b) liquid precipitation
c) areas with relatively flat terrain
d) stratiform, cool season rainfall
The correct answers are a, b, and c.
Question 3
Which of the following is least necessary for good radar coverage?
a) Precipitation across a broad area
b) High density of radar locations
c) Minimal groundbased obstruction to the radar beam
d) Precipitation through a deep cloud layer
The correct answer is a.
Question 4
An appropriate ZR relationship _____.
a) may need to vary with time
b) should be appropriate for the entire radar umbrella
c) should work for rain and snow
d) should take into account the assumed drop size distribution
The correct answers are a and d.
Question 5
Polarimetric radar should provide a means to more accurately estimate the drop size distribution resulting in better
precipitation estimates.
a) True
b) False
Question 6
Satellitederived rainfall is more consistent but less representative than radar in the conterminous U.S.
a) True
b) False
III. Rain Gauge QPE
As long as humans have kept weather records there has been a need to capture precipitation in some sort of collection
device.
Today’s precipitation gauges, hereafter referred to as rain gauges, are the current version of those collection devices.
Rain gauges come in a variety of styles, both manual and automated...
and are used to measure rain as well as the liquid equivalent of frozen precipitation.
In this section we will discuss the reality of the term “ground truth”. In doing so we will discuss the impact on gauge
measurement, or “gauge catch,” from wind, the physical characteristics and location of the gauge, and the characteristics of
the precipitation. We will offer some perspective on these issues with respect to whether the gauge is automated or
manual.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Are they really ground truth?
Often referred to as “ground truth”, rain gauges are subject to errors from a variety of sources. Although gauges do often
provide excellent point measurements, at times the error in those measurements can become quite large. Sources of error
include the construction and exposure of the gauge itself, the character of the precipitation, and the weather conditions.
Even a perfectly accurate rain gauge network, if such a thing exists, may not be representative of the areal variations in the
precipitation accumulation. Because they are point measurements, gauges are only representative of the immediate
vicinity where they are located.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Exercise: Gauges, Wind, and Fall Angle
In still air the hydrometeors that make up precipitation fall vertically downward to the gauge.
Wind causes precipitation to fall at an angle with respect to the vertical. In addition, the gauge itself presents an obstacle to
the flow. This results in altered wind patterns near the gauge.
The effects of the wind will vary depending on hydrometeor phase and size.
No wind: precipitation falls vertically downward
Wind causes precipitation to fall at an angle
Wind causes altered wind patterns near gauge
Wind effects vary with hydrometeor phase and size
Download Video
In this exercise we will consider typical 2 mmdiameter raindrop. We will take the perspective of 2mm drops falling toward
the gauge opening. Consider a 0° fall angle to be that of rain falling perfectly vertical, and a 90° fall angle is rain blowing
perpendicular to the gauge.
Compare how the fall angle changes in the following figures, along with the effective collection area of the gauge, as wind
speed changes. For each wind speed you can compare the ideal catch area of the gauge with the effective catch area that
is determined by the fall angle. When you are ready, answer the questions provided.
Download Video
Download Video
Download Video
Download Video
Download Video
Question 1
As the wind speed increases, the effective “catch” area of the gauge opening _____.
a) decreases
b) stays the same
c) increases
d) decreases once wind speed hits 15 m/s
Question 2
At a steady wind speed of 20 m/s (44 mph), the effective collection area of the gauge appears to be _____ the ideal catch
area.
a) about the same as
b) > 80% of
c) < 50% of
d) The gauge is no longer catching anything.
Of course there is a great deal of variability controlling the fall angle. Influences on the angle include the steadiness of the
wind, disruption to the flow, and very importantly, the size and phase of the hydrometeor.
Continuing with the perspective of raindrops falling toward the gauge opening, let’s hold the wind speed at a steady 10 m/s
(22 mph). Compare how the gauge catch for 2mm drops changes for drops of >3 mm diameter, smaller drops of <1 mm
diameter, and pristine snowflakes.
Download Video
Download Video
Download Video
Download Video
Question 3
Which is likely to have the greatest undercatch by the gauge?
a) Snowflakes
b) Drops >3mm
c) 2mm drops
d) Drops <1mm
Question 4
Which is likely to have the second greatest undercatch by the gauge?
a) Snowflakes
b) Drops >3mm
c) 2mm drops
d) Drops <1mm
The correct answer is d.
Question 5
If a rainfall had a mixture of 1, 2, 4mm drops, which ones would be best sampled by the gauge?
a) The 1mm drops
b) The 2mm drops
c) The 4mm drops
d) All would be sampled equally
Question 6
If we had wet snowflakes instead of pristine snowflakes, we should expect the gauge catch to be _____.
a) better
b) the same
c) worse
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Gauges, Wind, and Turbulence
The exercise that you just completed showed a simplified look at the impact of wind on gauge catch. The fall angle
considerations represent a worstcase scenario. But in addition to fall angle considerations, turbulence in the flow may
influence the trajectory of hydrometeors. This may partially offset errors caused by the wind. Spacing between
hydrometeors may also change due to wind effects, possibly offsetting some of the windinduced errors.
Here we see an increase in wind speed over the gauge, but we also see turbulence induced downward motion. Note from
the trajectories that this may increase catch, although sometimes the primary gaugeinduced downward motion may be
downwind of the gauge.
Download Video
Groundinduced turbulence in the vicinity of the gauge may be much more important for improving gauge catch than
turbulence induced by the gauge itself.
As long as the ground objects are not tall enough to intercept incoming precipitation, the turbulenceinduced downward
motion has the effect of turning the hydrometeors vertically toward the ground.
Elevated gauges are less likely to benefit from groundinduced turbulence.
A clearing within the trees may provide the best balance between reducing wind speed but not altering precipitation
distribution too much. Remember that the effects from deciduous trees are seasonal.
(Note: This measurement station also includes a snow pillow used to measure the weight of accumulated snow. Snow
pillows will be discussed in more detail later. )
Question 1
Which gauge is likely to suffer less from windinduced undercatch?
a) Photo A
b) Photo B
c) About the same for each
The gauge in photo A at Mica Creek, Idaho is less likely to experience significant windinduced undercatch because it is in
a less exposed location than the gauge in photo B. Clearings in forests are relatively good locations for gauges because
the lower wind speed and turbulence between the surface and roughly the height of the trees induces downward motion of
the hydrometeors.
Although vegetation may provide natural barriers to generate turbulenceinduced downward motion, wind shields are often
constructed to specifically induce this effect. Although these may result in some improvement, considerable windinduced
error may still exist.
Question 2
Considering turbulence effects, which two gauges do you think would result in better gauge catch?
Choose the two best answers.
a) One near the ground.
b) One that is elevated in an open field.
c) One on a rooftop.
d) One that is shielded with a wind screen.
The correct answers are a and d.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Rain, Gauge Catch, and Wind
In summary, gauge catch of rain is influenced by both the fall angle and the turbulence in the vicinity of the gauge.
Fall angles that depart from the verical will result in a reduction of the gauge's effective collection area. Turbulence partially
offsets this problem by inducing downward motion around the gauge.
This graphic shows the generalized relationship between wind speed and gauge catch for liquid hydrometeors. The gauge
catch is expressed as the ratio of the gauge measurement to what actually fell, so values less than 1.0 are measures of
underestimation by the gauge.
For a typical size raindrop of 22.5 mm, a general rule of thumb is to expect a 1% loss of precipitation for every 1 mph
increment in wind speed. This converts to 2.2% for every 1 m/s.
Therefore, a 9 m/s (20 mph) wind speed may be expected to result in an underestimation factor of 0.80, or a 20%
underestimation of the rainfall.
There is a large envelope of uncertainty due to the variability in drop sizes, the steadiness of the wind, and the gauge
location. Here are a few main points to remember. The best measurements in windy conditions will be in situations with
large raindrops, gauges near ground level, and shielded gauges. The poorest measurements will be with small raindrops
and drizzle drops, and when gauges are directly exposed to the wind.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Snow, Gauge Catch, and Wind
As demonstrated in the exercise, snow is more severely impacted by wind.
Download Video
This photograph shows the typical collection of snow in a rain gauge with relatively light winds of 5 m/s (11 mph). The snow
is drifted up on one side illustrating that only a portion of the opening, on the downwind side, was effectively collecting the
snow.
A 5 m/s (11 mph) wind will result in gauge undercatch for snowflakes on the order of tens of percent. The studies plotted on
this graph show that at a wind speed of 7 m/s (15 mph) the gauge may be catching only 1050% of what actually falls! Even
in the two studies where the gauge catch was improved through use of wind shields, the gauge catch at 7 m/s is still 50%
or less. The magnitude of the problem will vary with snowflake characteristics. Denser crystals will have less gauge catch
errors than low density crystals.
Snow pillows are a technology used at SNOTEL sites in the western United States. These weigh the snow on the ground to
get a liquid equivalent. Users in the NWS generally find that these data are superior to those provided by automated
gauges.
More information can be found at the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) site: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Effects from Gauge Characteristics
A gauge aperture of at least 102 mm (4 in) in diameter is desirable. These NOAAapproved clear plastic gauges have 4
inch diameter apertures. Smaller openings will increase the likelihood of under catch.
The NWS cooperative climate station manual gauges have a 203 mm (8 inch) aperture.
As mentioned earlier, gauge catch is sometimes improved when nearby vegetation disrupts the wind. A good location may
be a forest clearing where the trees are not close enough to directly intercept the precipitation.
The reason to elevate gauges or place them on rooftops is often driven by security concerns rather than science. This
increases the likelihood of windinduced errors.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Measurements from Automated Gauges
Automated rain gauges are preferred by many professional users such as the NWS. Automation allows for the assimilation
of numerous reports from remote regions.
A widely used type of automated gauge in the United States is the tipping bucket style. These allow for high temporal
resolution.
Download Video
Problems associated with automated gauge measurements are often a function of precipitation rate and precipitation
phase.
Precipitation phase refers to whether the hydrometeors are liquid, liquid and below freezing—such as freezing rain—or
frozen, such as hail or snow.
Download Video
Freezing and frozen precipitation present a difficult problem for gauge measurement. This is particularly true for the
popular automated tipping bucket gauge. To obtain a liquid equivalent measurement, the gauge must be heated to melt
the frozen precipitation. This can and often does lead to sublimation or evaporation of precipitation without measuring it,
resulting in underestimates. In addition, if the snowfall rate is very great, the melting will not occur fast enough to prevent
gauge overflow, again leading to underestimation.
Precipitation rate can also impact the accuracy of the gauge measurement. Although this varies with gauge design, the
problem has been primarily with the tipping bucket style gauge as described in the rain gauge webcast referred to earlier.
The NWS is testing an automated “weighing” gauge known as the all weather precipitation accumulation gauge (AWPAG).
There is still some heating of the rim to help direct snow into the gauge where a weight will determine the liquid equivalent.
However, the heated area is not nearly as large as that in the tipping bucket gauges used by the NWS. Therefore, the
errors with evaporation and sublimation should be reduced.
Initial testing showed disappointing results in snow, perhaps due mainly to wind effects.
A new double wind shield version of the AWPAG gauge that is being deployed may help reduce the problems with
measuring snow.
As mentioned earlier, “snow pillow” estimates at SNOTEL sites are often used instead of gauges where they are available.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Measurements from Manual Gauges
Manual gauge reports suffer from the lack of high temporal resolution. This makes manual reports less suitable for software
programs that need fast access to high resolution gauge reports.
However, manual gauges are visited routinely and therefore problems that affect gauge measurement may be identified
more quickly. These problems can include insect or bird nests, leakage, overflow, blockage from rapidly growing
vegetation, and vandalism.
Provided that gauge overflow does not occur during intense hail or snowfall, manual gauges may allow more accurate
liquid equivalent measurements with frozen precipitation. Snow and hail are melted and measured manually.
In addition, the observer may collect a “core” measurement of snow from the ground if she/he determines that this will
provide a more representative sample than the snow that was collected by the gauge. Core measurements are intended to
minimize the errors caused by the wind. A well trained observer may therefore provide improved liquid equivalent
readings.
There are numerous manual gauge networks. Two wellknown ones are the cooperative observing network and the
Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow observing network (CoCoRaHS).
The cooperative observing network, which is sponsored by NOAA’s National Weather Service, has observers in every
state. Roughly 80% of the network still uses manual gauges.
The CoCoRaHS network is nationwide in the United States: http://www.cocorahs.org/.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Rain Gauge QPE Key Points
Rain gauges can provide excellent information if they are wellmaintained, optimally located, and the wind is light.
Rain gauges are point estimates and will not necessarily provide good spatial resolution.
Wind causes significant errors in the gauge catch resulting in underestimation errors. These errors are greatest in
strong wind, for exposed gauges, and for snowflakes and small liquid drops.
Windinduced fall angles reduce the effective catch area of the gauge. Turbulence can induce downward motion
that partially offsets the fall angle problem.
In situations where good radar coverage exists, it is possible that high wind situations may cause greater
uncertainties in the accuracy of the gauges than that of the radar. A user of multiple precipitation sensors may want
to consider the possibility that under such conditions it may not be wise to adjust the radar with the rain gauge data.
III. Rain Gauge QPE » Review Questions
Question 1
Gauges are not necessarily ground truth because they are subject to quantitative errors and they _____.
a) often don’t represent spatial variations across an area
b) are not capable of high frequency updates
c) are not equipped to measure the liquid equivalent of snow
d) don’t measure high rainfall rates
Question 2
In high wind situations, the gauge measurement _____.
a) may overestimate significantly
b) may underestimate significantly
c) will still be better than the radar
d) may be less accurate than the radar
The correct answers are b and d.
Question 3
In windy conditions the most accurate gauge measurements will occur with wellmaintained gauges and _____.
a) large liquid drops
b) snowflakes
c) gauges near ground level
d) elevated gauges
The correct answers are a and c.
Question 4
A general rule of thumb is to expect a 1% loss of rainfall measured by the gauge for every _____ increase in wind speed.
a) 1 m/s (2.2 mph)
b) 2.2 m/s (5 mph)
c) 1 mph (0.45 m/s)
d) 10 mph (4.5 m/s)
IV. Precipitation Climatology/PRISM
Precipitation climatology guidance can be used to help fill in the gaps where estimates of observed precipitation are poor.
The most widely used precipitation climatology tool in the United States as of 2009 is the Parameterelevation Regressions
on an Independent Slopes Model, or PRISM. Prior to its use in MPE, PRISM was used extensively in several River
Forecast Centers in the western United States.
Topics in this section include the rationale for PRISM, the use of PRISM data, NCDC precipitation climatology tools, and
limitations of using precipitation climatology for QPE.
IV. Precipitation Climatology/PRISM » PRISM
Developed at Oregon State University, PRISM climatology products include precipitation climatology guidance for the
contiguous United States...
...the Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and...
...Alaska, along with portions of neighboring Canadian provinces.
Products and detailed presentations about deriving those products are available for download from the PRISM group at
Oregon State University: http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/.
PRISM precipitation climatologies are based on the historic record of measured precipitation at point locations, geographic
input, especially terrain information, and in some cases, the prevailing wind direction. Streamflow discharge
measurements are used to correlate basin precipitation climatology with runoff climatology and thus provide a rough
validation check on the precipitation amount.
Point observations are rarely sufficient to represent spatial patterns of precipitation. This is especially true in regions with
sharp changes in elevation and/or nearby large bodies of water. PRISM uses the known relationships of precipitation with
geographic features. An automated statistical approach is used for efficiency, but this is guided by human expertise.
IV. Precipitation Climatology/PRISM » Basic Use of PRISM
PRISM precipitation climatology may be used for both observed precipitation (QPE) and forecast precipitation (QPF).
Deriving QPE from PRISM precipitation climatology starts with point values, such as reading from a rain gauge. From there
we derive the ratio of the point value to the PRISM value.
In this example we assume the gauge reading is 40 mm (1.57 in) and the PRISM value at that point is 20 mm (0.79 in). The
ratio of 40 over 20 is 2.0. Now, we apply that ratio to other PRISM values.
This adjusts the areal precipitation estimate by the ratio of 2.0 but it preserves the gradients and the relative magnitudes
that we see in the PRISM data.
Of course this process is done for numerous gauge locations using distanceweighting schemes. This is the basic
functionality of an MPE component called Daily QC. Daily QC was developed as part of the Mountain Mapper system in the
western United States and it produces qualitycontrolled, PRISMadjusted, gauge analyses.
This approach using gauge and terrain data is considered the 3dimensional (3D) approach. This can be very useful in
terrainaffected areas. The areas that are within 100 km of the green shading on this map are where PRISM uses the 3D
approach for QPE. This would also include all of the Hawaiian Islands and most of Alaska. In the white areas on this map,
PRISM uses a 2D process. This is basically a distanceweighted gauge analysis.
IV. Precipitation Climatology/PRISM » Other Precipitation Climatology Tools
The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) is developing another potential tool for spatial climate data. Precipitation
products will be part of this NCDC climate tool. Here we see the preliminary look at products for January and July
precipitation climatology in the contiguous United States.
IV. Precipitation Climatology/PRISM » Limitations of Precipitation Climatology
As with any climatological data, there are limitations. Climatology averages the individual events in a data set. Individual
precipitation events may show large departures from climatology, especially in the locations of extreme and sharp
gradients. However, even with these limitations, there are regions that will likely benefit somewhat from climatological
tools.
Individual events will often be closer to climatology in regions with large orographic influences.
In addition, regions that tend to receive widespread, stratiform precipitation will be closer to climatology than areas
dominated by convection.
So the western coasts of North America may be the areas that can benefit most from climatological adjustments to QPE.
Keep in mind that departures from climatological norms will likely have greater impacts as one looks at smaller basins.
IV. Precipitation Climatology/PRISM » Review Questions
Question 1
Climatology guidance like PRISM is useful in areas with good radar coverage, but very few gauges.
a) True
b) False
Question 2
Climatological guidance is likely to be most useful in regions with _____ and _____.
a) little or no orographic influences | very little convective precipitation
b) domination of orographic influences | very little convective precipitation
c) little or no orographic influences | predominantly convective precipitation
d) domination of orographic influences | predominantly convective precipitation
Question 3
Climatological adjustments to QPE may misrepresent the distribution of precipitation that is _____.
a) influenced by terrain
b) falling as snow, hail, or freezing rain
c) a departure from the climatological distribution
d) closely following the climatological distribution
V. Summary
Observed liquid equivalent of precipitation can be measured directly from rain gauges, or indirectly from remote sensing
tools. Remote sensing tools include radar and satellite. Measured precipitation fields are sometimes altered with
climatological tools.
Remote sensing tools have the advantage of providing indirect measurements over a broad spatial area. Radarderived
products in particular can provide excellent spatial and temporal resolution. But remotely sensed precipitation estimates
are subject to errors related to the properties of the sensor and characteristics of the precipitation.
Direct measurement from gauges is often referred to as ground truth. However, errors are associated with the type of
gauge, characteristics of the precipitation, and the wind. In addition, the gauges often do not represent spatial detail.
Climatological adjustments offer a method for filling in data void regions with useful data. But these adjustments can be
misleading for precipitation systems that depart from climatological norms.
Part II of this 2module series on precipitation estimates explores how to combine the measurements from multiple sensors
into an optimal analysis of observed precipitation.
References
Curtis, David C., and R. Burnash, 1996: Inadvertent rain gauge inconsistencies and their effect on hydrologic analysis.
Proceedings: 1996 CaliforniaNevada ALERT Users Group Conference, Ventura, CA, May 1517, 1996.
DiLuzio, M., G.L. Johnson, C. Daly, J.K. Eischeid, and J.G. Arnold, 2008: Constructing retrospective gridded daily
precipitation and temperature datasets for the conterminous United States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and
Climatology, 47: 475497.
Guo, James C. Y., B. Urbonas, and K. Stewart, 2001: Rain catch under wind and vegetal cover effects. Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 6, 2933.
Sieck, Lisa C., S. Burgess, and M. Steiner, 2007: Challenges in obtaining reliable measurements of point rainfall. AGU,
Water Resources Research, Vol. 43
Vasiloff, Steven V., D. J. Seo, K. Howard, J. Zhang, D. Kitzmiller, M. Mullusky, W. Krajewski, E. Brandes, R. Rabin, D.
Berkowitz, H. Brooks, J. McGinley, R. Kuligowski, and B. Brown, 2007: Improving QPE and very short term QPF: an initiative
for a communitywide integrated approach. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 88, Issue 12, 18991911.
Links
NOAA/NWS Warning Decision Training Division (WDTD) Radar and Applications Course (RAC):
(http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/rac/outline.php)
Overview of WSR88D system:
(http://www.roc.noaa.gov/WSR88D/)
HydroEstimator Products page:
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/ff/auto.html
Information about satellitederived precipitation estimator with the Hydro Estimator VisitView lesson:
http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/training/visit/training_sessions/the_satellite_rainfall_hydroestimator/
Information on precipitation climatology guidance from Parameterelevation Regressions on an Independent Slopes Model
(PRISM), see:
http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/
Excellent online training on dualpolarized, or polarimetric radar:
http://www.wdtb.noaa.gov/courses/dualpol/Outreach/
NWS radar climatology program, RADCLIM:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/papers/2001mou/chapter3_app.pdf
NOAA’s STAR Satellite Rainfall Estimates page:
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/ff/index.html
COMET module “Microwave Remote Sensing: Clouds, Precipitation, and Water Vapor”:
http://www.meted.ucar.edu/training_module.php?id=226
NRCS SNOTEL site: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/
More information can be found at the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
Contributors
COMET Sponsors
The COMET® Program is sponsored by NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS), with additional funding by:
Bureau of Meteorology of Australia (BoM)
Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior
European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT)
Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC)
NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS)
NOAA's National Geodetic Survey (NGS)
Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command (NMOC)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Project Contributors
Senior Project Manager
Wendy Abshire — UCAR/COMET
Principal Scientist
Matthew Kelsch — UCAR/COMET
Project Leads
Lon Goldstein — UCAR/COMET
Instructional Design
Additional Science Contributors
Greg Shelton — NWS
Jay Breidenbach — NWS
Paul Tilles — NWS
Graphics/Interface Design
Steve Deyo — UCAR/COMET
Brannan McGill — UCAR/COMET
Multimedia Authoring
Carl Whitehurst — UCAR/COMET
Audio Editing/Production
Seth Lamos — UCAR/COMET
Audio Narration
COMET Staff, January 2009
Director
Dr. Timothy Spangler
Deputy Director
Dr. Joe Lamos
Administration
Elizabeth Lessard, Administration and Business Manager
Lorrie Alberta
Michelle Harrison
Hildy Kane
Hardware/Software Support and Programming
Tim Alberta, Group Manager
Bob Bubon
James Hamm
Ken Kim
Mark Mulholland
Wade Pentz Student Assistant
Jay Shollenberger Student Assistant
Malte Winkler
Instructional Designers
Dr. Patrick Parrish, Senior Project Manager
Dr. Alan Bol
Lon Goldstein
Bryan Guarente
Dr. Vickie Johnson
Tsvetomir RossLazarov
Marianne Weingroff
Media Production Group
Bruce Muller, Group Manager
Steve Deyo
Seth Lamos
Brannan McGill
Dan Riter
Carl Whitehurst
Meteorologists/Scientists
Dr. Greg Byrd, Senior Project Manager
Wendy SchreiberAbshire, Senior Project Manager
Dr. William Bua
Patrick Dills
Dr. Stephen Jascourt
Matthew Kelsch
Dolores Kiessling
Dr. Cody Kirkpatrick
Dr. Arlene Laing
Dr. Elizabeth Mulvihill Page
Amy Stevermer
Warren Rodie
Dr. Doug Wesley
Science Writer
Jennifer Frazer
Spanish Translations
David Russi
NOAA/National Weather Service Forecast Decision Training Branch
Anthony Mostek, Branch Chief
Dr. Richard Koehler, Hydrology Training Lead
Brian Motta, IFPS Training
Dr. Robert Rozumalski, SOO Science and Training Resource (SOO/STRC) Coordinator
Ross Van Til, Meteorologist
Shannon White, AWIPS Training
Meteorological Service of Canada Visiting Meteorologists
Phil Chadwick
Jim Murtha
Copyright 20092016 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. All rights reserved. Legal notices

Precipitation Estimates, Part 1 - Measurement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Precipitation Estimates, Part 1 - Measurement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Precipitation Estimates, Part 1: Measurement

You might also like