Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Meteorological Drought and Wet Conditions Using Two Drought Indices Across KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Characteristics of DSD Bulk Parameters: Implication for Radar Rain Retrieval
Previous Article in Journal
Grey Cast Iron Brake Discs Laser Cladded with Nickel-Tungsten Carbide—Friction, Wear and Airborne Wear Particle Emission
Previous Article in Special Issue
Drop Size Distribution Measurements in Outer Rainbands of Hurricane Dorian at the NASA Wallops Precipitation-Research Facility
Article

Evaluation of the Microphysical Assumptions within GPM-DPR Using Ground-Based Observations of Rain and Snow

1
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
2
Cooperative institute of Mesoscale Meteorological Studies and School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73072, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2020, 11(6), 619; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060619
Received: 30 April 2020 / Revised: 4 June 2020 / Accepted: 9 June 2020 / Published: 11 June 2020
The Global Precipitation Measurement Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar (GPM-DPR) provides an opportunity to investigate hydrometeor properties. Here, an evaluation of the microphysical framework used within the GPM-DPR retrieval was undertaken using ground-based disdrometer measurements in both rain and snow with an emphasis on the evaluation of snowfall retrieval. Disdrometer measurements of rain show support for the two separate prescribed relations within the GPM-DPR algorithm between the precipitation rate (R) and the mass weighted mean diameter ( D m ) with a mean absolute percent error ( M A P E ) on R of 29% and 47% and a mean bias percentage ( M B P ) of 6% and 20% for the stratiform and convective relation, respectively. Ground-based disdrometer measurements of snow show higher MAPE and MBP values in the retrieval of R, at 77% and 52% , respectively, compared to the stratiform rain relation. An investigation using the disdrometer-measured fall velocity and mass in the calculation of R and D m illustrates that the variability found in hydrometeor mass causes a poor correlation between R and D m in snowfall. The results presented here suggest that R D m retrieval is likely not optimal in snowfall, and other retrieval techniques for R should be explored. View Full-Text
Keywords: snowfall rate; rainfall rate; radar retrievals snowfall rate; rainfall rate; radar retrievals
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Chase, R.J.; Nesbitt, S.W.; McFarquhar, G.M. Evaluation of the Microphysical Assumptions within GPM-DPR Using Ground-Based Observations of Rain and Snow. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 619. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060619

AMA Style

Chase RJ, Nesbitt SW, McFarquhar GM. Evaluation of the Microphysical Assumptions within GPM-DPR Using Ground-Based Observations of Rain and Snow. Atmosphere. 2020; 11(6):619. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060619

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chase, Randy J., Stephen W. Nesbitt, and Greg M. McFarquhar 2020. "Evaluation of the Microphysical Assumptions within GPM-DPR Using Ground-Based Observations of Rain and Snow" Atmosphere 11, no. 6: 619. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11060619

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop