Comparison of Raindrop Size Distribution between NASA’s S-Band Polarimetric Radar and Two-Dimensional Video Disdrometers
Loading...
Author/Creator ORCID
Date
2020-03-17
Type of Work
Department
Program
Citation of Original Publication
Tokay, A., L. P. D’Adderio, D. A. Marks, J. L. Pippitt, D. B. Wolff, and W. A. Petersen, 2020: Comparison of Raindrop Size Distribution between NASA’s S-Band Polarimetric Radar and Two-Dimensional Video Disdrometers. J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 59, 517–533, https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-18-0339.1.
Rights
This item is likely protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. Unless on a Creative Commons license, for uses protected by Copyright Law, contact the copyright holder or the author.
Access to this item will begin on 3/17/21
Access to this item will begin on 3/17/21
Subjects
Abstract
The ground-based-radar-derived raindrop size distribution (DSD) parameters—mass-weighted drop diameter Dmass and normalized intercept parameter NW—are the sole resource for direct validation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission Core Observatory satellite-based retrieved DSD. Both Dmass and NW are obtained from radar-measured reflectivity ZH and differential reflectivity ZDR through empirical relationships. This study uses existing relationships that were determined for the GPM ground validation (GV) program and directly compares the NASA S-band polarimetric radar (NPOL) observables of ZH and ZDR and derived Dmass and NW with those calculated by two-dimensional video disdrometer (2DVD). The joint NPOL and 2DVD datasets were acquired during three GPM GV field campaigns conducted in eastern Iowa, southern Appalachia, and western Washington State. The comparative study quantifies the level of agreement for ZH, ZDR, Dmass, and log(NW) at an optimum distance (15–40 km) from the radar as well as at distances greater than 60 km from radar and over mountainous terrain. Interestingly, roughly 10%–15% of the NPOL ZH–ZDR pairs were well outside the envelope of 2DVD-estimated ZH–ZDR pairs. The exclusion of these pairs improved the comparisons noticeably.