Rain Gauge and Disdrometer Measurements during the Keys Area Microphysics Project (KAMP)

Tokay, Ali; Wolff, David B.; Wolff, Katherine; Bashor, Paul G.

doi:10.1175/1520-0426(2003)020<1460:rgadmd>2.0.co;2

Cited by 61 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first site, the Zhurucay ecohydrological observatory, is located on the western flank of the cordillera, and consists of a single flat monitoring site of 200 m 2 equipped with three DRTB rain gauges (Davis, Onset, and Texas rain gauges with resolutions of 0.25, 0.2, and 0.1 mm, respectively), and one laser-optical disdrometer (resolution 0.01 mm). The installation height for all the rain gauges is 1 m, whereas the height of the laser-disdrometer is 1.5 m; the horizontal distance between each pair of TBs is 2 m. All the sensors were installed following the manufacturer's and the World Meteorological Organization's recommendations to assure accurate measurements and comparability of results with other studies [35][36][37]. The second observatory, the Quinuas ecohydrological observatory, is located on the eastern flank of the cordillera along the altitudinal gradient of the Cajas National Park, and has three monitoring sites located at different elevations and distances (approximately 5 km between the two nearest sites and 9 km between the more distant sites); each site was equipped with a pair of DRTB rain gauges.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the Resolution of Tipping-Bucket Rain Gauge and Calculation Method on Rainfall Intensities in an Andean Mountain Gradient

Muñoz

Célleri

Feyen

2016

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:A laser-optical disdrometer served as reference to assess the absolute percent bias of calculated rainfall intensity using the data of different-resolution tipping-bucket rain gauges classically applied by climatologists and hydrologists in the Andean region. Additionally, the impact of the calculation method (tip counting versus cubic spline interpolation) was examined. The combined effect was assessed for different rainfall intensity classes (0-0.99, 1-1.99, 2-4.99, and 5-10 mm·h −1 ) and timescales (5, 10, 30, and 60 min). Additionally, the variation in percent absolute bias of the Davis rain gauge, the collector most widely used in the study region, was defined with respect to the Texas rain gauge along an elevation gradient between 3300 and 4000 m a.s.l. Results reveal that the value of the percent absolute bias is largest for small rainfall intensities (≤2 mm·h −1 ) and short timescales (≤10 min), and decreases when the cubic spline interpolation is used. No relation was found between the error, the elevation, and rainfall depth along the gradient. Based on the research findings, it is recommended to measure precipitation in the high Andean mountain region with a high-resolution sensor and to consider cubic spline for the computation of intensities.

show abstract

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of the Resolution of Tipping-Bucket Rain Gauge and Calculation Method on Rainfall Intensities in an Andean Mountain Gradient

Muñoz

Célleri

Feyen

2016

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The NRLT is based on a real-time, underlying collection of time and space matching of IR TBs at 10.8 µm from GEO satellites and rain intensity estimations from MW satellite sensors (Turk et al, 2000;Turk and Miller, 2005;Torricella et al, 2007). The NRLT technique for PS-OBS-3 is fed by PR-OBS-1 and PR-OBS-2 MW estimates.…”

Section: Satellite Precipitation Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several sources of uncertainty in the measurements are well known, but difficult to mitigate. First, very light rain rates (1 mm h −1 and less) can be estimated incorrectly due to the long time it takes for the rain to fill the bucket (Tokay et al, 2003). On the other hand, high rain rates (above 50 mm h −1 ) are usually underestimated, due to No Y * The number of rain gauges could vary from day to day due to operational efficiency within a maximum range of 10-15 %.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Rain Gauge National Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The validation service of the hydrological SAF geostationary and polar satellite precipitation products

Puca

Porcú

Rinollo

et al. 2014

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The development phase (DP) of the EUMETSAT Satellite Application Facility for Support to Operational Hydrology and Water Management (H-SAF) led to the design and implementation of several precipitation products, after 5 yr (2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010) of activity. Presently, five precipitation estimation algorithms based on data from passive microwave and infrared sensors, on board geostationary and sun-synchronous platforms, function in operational mode at the H-SAF hosting institute to provide near real-time precipitation products at different spatial and temporal resolutions.In order to evaluate the precipitation product accuracy, a validation activity has been established since the beginning of the project. A Precipitation Product Validation Group (PPVG) works in parallel with the development of the estimation algorithms with two aims: to provide the algorithm developers with indications to refine algorithms and products, and to evaluate the error structure to be associated with the operational products.In this paper, the framework of the PPVG is presented: (a) the characteristics of the ground reference data available to H-SAF (i.e. radar and rain gauge networks), (b) the agreed upon validation strategy settled among the eight European countries participating in the PPVG, and (c) the steps of the validation procedures. The quality of the reference data is discussed, and the efforts for its improvement are outlined, with special emphasis on the definition of a ground radar Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union. S. Puca et al.:The validation service of the hydrological SAF geostationary products quality map and on the implementation of a suitable rain gauge interpolation algorithm. The work done during the H-SAF development phase has led the PPVG to converge into a common validation procedure among the members, taking advantage of the experience acquired by each one of them in the validation of H-SAF products. The methodology is presented here, indicating the main steps of the validation procedure (ground data quality control, spatial interpolation, upscaling of radar data vs. satellite grid, statistical score evaluation, case study analysis).Finally, an overview of the results is presented, focusing on the monthly statistical indicators, referred to the satellite product performances over different seasons and areas.

show abstract

“…Although the comparative observations with the disdrometers and rain gauge verify the accuracy of rain rate measured by disdrometers, there is no reference instrument that can obtain the true values, nor a standard environment that can simulate the precipitation. The DSD, number concentration, and other micro-physical variables of precipitation measured by different instruments show different discrepancies (Chandrasekar and Gori, 1991;Tokay et al, 2001Tokay et al, , 2003Löhnert et al, 2011), which makes the effective application of micro-physical data of precipitation difficult.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of rainfall measurements from multiple instruments

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simultaneous observations of rainfall collected by a tipping bucket rain gauge (TBRG), a weighing rain gauge (WRG), an optical rain gauge (ORG), a present weather detector (PWD), a Joss–Waldvogel disdrometer (JWD), and a 2-D video disdrometer (2DVD) during January to October 2012 were analyzed to evaluate how accurately they measure rainfall and drop size distributions (DSDs). For the long-term observations, there were different discrepancies in rain amounts from six instruments on the order of 0% to 27.7%. The TBRG, WRG, and ORG have a good agreement, while the PWD and 2DVD record higher and the JWD lower rain rates when R > 20 mm h⁻¹, the ORG agrees well with JWD and 2DVD, while the TBRG records higher and the WRG lower rain rates when R > 20 mm h⁻¹. Compared with the TBRG and WRG, optical and impact instruments can measure the rain rate accurately in the light rain. The overall DSDs of JWD and 2DVD agree well with each other, except for the small raindrops (D < 1 mm). JWD can measure more moderate-size raindrops (0.3 mm < D < 1.5 mm) than 2DVD, but 2DVD can measure more small-size raindrops (D < 0.3 mm). 2DVD has a larger measurement range; more overall raindrops can be measured by 2DVD than by JWD in different rain rate regimes. But small raindrops might be underestimated by 2DVD when R > 15 mm h⁻¹. The small raindrops tend to be omitted in the more large-size raindrops due to the shadow effect of light. Therefore, the measurement accuracy of small raindrops in the heavy rainfall from 2DVD should be handled carefully

show abstract

Rain Gauge and Disdrometer Measurements during the Keys Area Microphysics Project (KAMP)

Cited by 61 publications

References 14 publications

Effect of the Resolution of Tipping-Bucket Rain Gauge and Calculation Method on Rainfall Intensities in an Andean Mountain Gradient

Effect of the Resolution of Tipping-Bucket Rain Gauge and Calculation Method on Rainfall Intensities in an Andean Mountain Gradient

The validation service of the hydrological SAF geostationary and polar satellite precipitation products

A comparison of rainfall measurements from multiple instruments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About