[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (121)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = radar quantitative precipitation estimate

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
18 pages, 5341 KiB  
Article
Comparing and Optimizing Four Machine Learning Approaches to Radar-Based Quantitative Precipitation Estimation
by Miaomiao Liu, Juncheng Zuo, Jianguo Tan and Dongwei Liu
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(24), 4713; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16244713 - 17 Dec 2024
Viewed by 261
Abstract
To improve radar-based quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) methods, this study investigated the relationship between radar reflectivity (Z) and hourly rainfall intensity (R) using data from 289 precipitation events in Shanghai between September 2020 and March 2024. Two Z-R relationship models were compared in [...] Read more.
To improve radar-based quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) methods, this study investigated the relationship between radar reflectivity (Z) and hourly rainfall intensity (R) using data from 289 precipitation events in Shanghai between September 2020 and March 2024. Two Z-R relationship models were compared in terms of their fitting performance: Z = 270.81 R1.09 (empirically fitted relationship) and Z = 300 R1.4 (standard relationship). The results show that the Z = 270.81 R1.09 model outperforms the Z = 300 R1.4 model in terms of fitting accuracy. Specifically, the Z = 270.81 R1.09 model more effectively captures the nonlinear relationship between radar reflectivity and rainfall intensity, with a higher degree of agreement between the fitted curve and the observed data points. This model demonstrated superior performance across all 289 precipitation events. This study evaluated the performance of four machine learning approaches while incorporating five meteorological features: specific differential phase shift (KDP), echo-top height (ET), vertical liquid water content (VIL), differential reflectivity (ZDR), and correlation coefficient (CC). Nine QPE models were constructed using these inputs. The key findings are as follows: (1) For models with a single-variable input, the KAN deep learning model outperformed Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Decision Trees, Support Vector Machines, and the traditional Z-R relationship. (2) When six features were used as inputs, the accuracy of the machine learning models improved significantly, with the KAN deep learning model outperforming other machine learning methods. Compared to using only radar reflectivity, the KAN deep learning model reduced the MRE by 20.78%, MAE by 4.07%, and RMSE by 12.74%, while increasing the coefficient of determination (R2) by 18.74%. (3) The integration of multiple meteorological features and machine learning optimization significantly enhanced QPE accuracy, with the KAN deep learning model performing best under varying meteorological conditions. This approach offers a promising method for improving radar-based QPE, particularly considering seasonal, weather system, and precipitation stage differentiation. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of automatic weather stations (blue dots) and the Qingpu radar (red triangle) in Shanghai.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the 5 × 5 radar range bin data above the automatic weather station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Workflow diagram for the relationship between the Z and R model, SVM, GBDT, RFR, and the KAN deep learning model for single-variable and multivariable precipitation estimation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Single-variable KAN deep learning neural network architecture.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Multivariable KAN deep learning neural network architecture.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of the estimation effects of two Z-R relationships.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scatter density plots of estimated vs. actual precipitation for five single-variable models: (<b>a</b>) Z = 270.81 R<sup>1.09</sup>; (<b>b</b>) SVM; (<b>c</b>) RF; (<b>d</b>) GBDT; and the (<b>e</b>) KAN deep learning method. The black solid line represents the ideal scenario where estimated values are perfectly aligned with observed values (<span class="html-italic">y = x</span>), while the red solid line indicates the actual relationship between estimated and observed values, highlighting the bias between them.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Map of radar reflectivity and spatial distribution of univariate precipitation estimates using five different models at 06:00 UTC on 24 June 2024: (<b>a</b>) radar reflectivity; (<b>b</b>) Z = 270.81 R<sup>1.09</sup>; (<b>c</b>) Support Vector Machine model; (<b>d</b>) Random Forest model; (<b>e</b>) Gradient Boosting Decision Tree model; and (<b>f</b>) KAN deep learning model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Map of radar reflectivity and spatial distribution of univariate precipitation estimates using five different models at 06:00 UTC on 24 June 2024: (<b>a</b>) radar reflectivity; (<b>b</b>) Z = 270.81 R<sup>1.09</sup>; (<b>c</b>) Support Vector Machine model; (<b>d</b>) Random Forest model; (<b>e</b>) Gradient Boosting Decision Tree model; and (<b>f</b>) KAN deep learning model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Scatter density plots of estimated vs. actual precipitation for four multivariable models: (<b>a</b>) SVM (multivariable); (<b>b</b>) GBDT (multivariable); (<b>c</b>) RF (multivariable); and (<b>d</b>) KAN deep learning method (multivariable). The red solid line represents the ideal scenario where estimated values are perfectly aligned with observed values (<span class="html-italic">y = x</span>), while the black solid line indicates the actual relationship between estimated and observed values, highlighting the bias between them.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Map of radar reflectivity and spatial distribution of multivariable precipitation estimates using four different models at 06:00 UTC on June 24, 2024: (<b>a</b>) radar reflectivity map; (<b>b</b>) Support Vector Machine model; (<b>c</b>) Random Forest model; (<b>d</b>) Gradient Boosting Decision Tree model; and (<b>e</b>) KAN deep learning model.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3131 KiB  
Article
Microphysical Characteristics of Precipitation for Four Types of Typical Weather Systems on Hainan Island
by Wupeng Xiao, Yun Zhang, Hepeng Zheng, Zuhang Wu, Yanqiong Xie and Yanbin Huang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(22), 4144; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16224144 - 6 Nov 2024
Viewed by 702
Abstract
The microphysical characteristics of precipitation and their differences among four typical weather systems over Hainan Island were investigated via multi-source observations from 2019 to 2023. We find that the cold fronts (CFs) have the greatest concentration of small raindrops, with a more substantial [...] Read more.
The microphysical characteristics of precipitation and their differences among four typical weather systems over Hainan Island were investigated via multi-source observations from 2019 to 2023. We find that the cold fronts (CFs) have the greatest concentration of small raindrops, with a more substantial raindrop condensation process. The subtropical highs (SHs), with primarily deep convection and more prominent evaporation at low levels, lead to greater medium-to-large raindrops (diameters > 1 mm). Tropical cyclones (TCs) are characterized mainly by raindrop condensation and breakup, resulting in high concentrations of small raindrops and low concentrations of large raindrops. The trough of low pressures (TLPs) produces the lowest concentration of small raindrops because of evaporation processes. The convective clusters of the SHs are between maritime-like and continental-like convective clusters, and those of the other three types of weather systems are closer to maritime-like convective clusters. The relationships between the shape parameter (μ) and the slope parameter (Λ), as well as between the reflectivity factors (Z) and the rain rates (R), were established for the four weather systems. These results could improve the accuracy of radar quantitative precipitation estimation and the microphysical parameterizations of numerical models for Hainan Island. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Synergetic Remote Sensing of Clouds and Precipitation II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of OTTs and AWSs on Hainan Island.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Circulation conditions of the four types of typical weather systems on Hainan Island. Composite of the 500 hPa geopotential height (black contours), the 850 hPa wind vector (blue arrows), and the 700 hPa specific humidity (g kg<sup>−1</sup>, shading). (<b>a</b>) CFs—the blue curve approximates the position of the cold front. (<b>b</b>) SHs—the black bold contours represent the 5880 gpm lines. (<b>c</b>) TCs—the yellow typhoon marker indicates the location of the center of the tropical cyclone Lionrock. (<b>d</b>) TLPs—the brown curve represents the location of the trough of low pressure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Average raindrop size distributions of the four types of weather systems, where the blue, red, purple, and green solid lines represent CFs, SHs, TCs, and TLPs, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Average raindrop size distributions of the four types of weather systems in different rainfall rates (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) represent <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>R</mi> </semantics></math> ≤ 10 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, 10 &lt; <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>R</mi> </semantics></math> ≤ 20 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, 20 &lt;<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>R</mi> </semantics></math> ≤ 50 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>R</mi> </semantics></math> &gt; 50 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, where the blue, red, purple, and green solid lines represent CFs, SHs, TCs, and TLPs, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Relative contributions of raindrops to (<b>a</b>) the rainfall rate <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>R</mi> </semantics></math> (<b>b</b>) the total raindrop concentration <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and (<b>c</b>) the reflectivity factor <span class="html-italic">Z</span> in different diameter bins, where the blue, red, purple, and green regions represent CFs, SHs, TCs, and TLPs, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Distribution of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>D</mi> <mi>m</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>l</mi> <mi>o</mi> <msub> <mi>g</mi> <mrow> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </msub> <mo stretchy="false">(</mo> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">w</mi> </msub> <mo stretchy="false">)</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> for convective precipitation and stratiform precipitation for the four types of weather systems. The black box represents the region of maritime and continental convective precipitation, as defined by [<a href="#B15-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">15</a>], and the thick black dashed line represents the stratiform precipitation fitting line. The thin black dashed lines represent the contours of the rainfall rate. The dark gray crosses and light gray dots represent convective and stratiform precipitation, respectively. The circle, square and rhombus symbols in (<b>a</b>) indicate the Meiyu front in Central China [<a href="#B43-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">43</a>] and East China [<a href="#B44-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">44</a>,<a href="#B45-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">45</a>]. Red and blue shading represent convective precipitation and stratiform precipitation, respectively. (<b>b</b>) Western (WWP), southern (SWP), and northern (NWP) of the western Pacific subtropical high [<a href="#B21-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">21</a>]. (<b>c</b>) The circle, square and rhombus denote the convective precipitation of tropical cyclones that made landfall in East China and South China [<a href="#B42-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">42</a>], Taiwan [<a href="#B26-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">26</a>], and Hainan [<a href="#B27-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">27</a>], and (<b>d</b>) The circle, square and rhombus indicate the pre-, mid-, and post-monsoon periods in the South China Sea, respectively [<a href="#B22-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">22</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scatterplot density distributions of <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>D</mi> <mi>m</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) with <span class="html-italic">R</span>. The red curves are the least-squares-fitted <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>D</mi> <mi>m</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>-<span class="html-italic">R</span> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>-<span class="html-italic">R</span> relationships, and the gray dashed line represents the 10 mm h<sup>−1</sup> contour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Fitted relationships for <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>D</mi> <mi>m</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>a</b>) and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>N</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (<b>b</b>) of the four types of weather systems with rainfall rate <span class="html-italic">R</span>, with the gray dashed line representing the 10 mm h<sup>−1</sup> contour.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Boxplot of CAPE. The red solid line represents the median, the blue dashed line represents the mean, and the red dots represent the anomalies; (<b>b</b>) Distribution of the mean probability density of the TBB derived from FY-4A, where the dashed lines represent the dividing lines of stratiform and shallow convection (−10 °C), moderate convection (−32 °C), deep convection (−60 °C), and extreme convection (−75 °C). The blue, red, purple, and green lines represent cold fronts, subtropical highs, tropical cyclones, and low-pressure troughs, respectively. (<b>c</b>) Boxplots of the LCL, 0 °C level height, and CTH.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Vertical profiles of the (<b>a</b>) temperature, (<b>b</b>) wind speed, (<b>c</b>) relative humidity, and (<b>d</b>) specific humidity for the four types of weather systems on Hainan Island.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p><span class="html-italic">μ-</span>Λ and <span class="html-italic">Z-R</span> relationships for the four types of weather systems. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) show the probability density distributions of the <span class="html-italic">μ-</span>Λ relationship and the quadratic polynomial fitting curves. The color bars on the right side represent the densities of the points in the scatterplot, where the data with precipitation rates of <span class="html-italic">R</span> &lt; 5 mm h<sup>−1</sup> are excluded, and the fitting curves are shown in (<b>e</b>). (<b>f</b>) shows the <span class="html-italic">Z-R</span> relationship for the corresponding system and the WSR-88D empirical relationship [<a href="#B48-remotesensing-16-04144" class="html-bibr">48</a>].</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 12761 KiB  
Article
Comparison of Different Quantitative Precipitation Estimation Methods Based on a Severe Rainfall Event in Tuscany, Italy, November 2023
by Alessio Biondi, Luca Facheris, Fabrizio Argenti and Fabrizio Cuccoli
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(21), 3985; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16213985 - 26 Oct 2024
Viewed by 730
Abstract
Accurate quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) is fundamental for a large number of hydrometeorological applications, especially when addressing extreme rainfall phenomena. This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of various rainfall estimation methods, specifically those relying on weather radar data, rain gauge data, and their [...] Read more.
Accurate quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) is fundamental for a large number of hydrometeorological applications, especially when addressing extreme rainfall phenomena. This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of various rainfall estimation methods, specifically those relying on weather radar data, rain gauge data, and their fusion. The study evaluates the accuracy and reliability of each method in estimating rainfall for a severe event that occurred in Tuscany, Italy. The results obtained confirm that merging radar and rain gauge data outperforms both individual approaches by reducing errors and improving the overall reliability of precipitation estimates. This study highlights the importance of data fusion in enhancing the accuracy of QPE and also supports its application in operational contexts, providing further evidence for the greater reliability of merging methods. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing of Precipitation Extremes)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Instability fronts and lines, 2 November 2023: (<b>a</b>) 12:00 UTC; (<b>b</b>) 18:00 UTC (source: MetOffice, U.K.). The instability line affecting Tuscany is circled in black. The figures are taken from [<a href="#B26-remotesensing-16-03985" class="html-bibr">26</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Convective available potential energy (CAPE) and wind barbs, 2 November 2023: (<b>a</b>) 15:00 UTC; (<b>b</b>) 18:00 UTC. The figures are taken from [<a href="#B26-remotesensing-16-03985" class="html-bibr">26</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Radar systems of the Italian national weather radar network that cover Tuscany. The red asterisks mark the radar sites, while the black lines indicate the Italian regional boundaries (Tuscany is highlighted in orange).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>CAPPI product at a height of 2000 m on 2 November 2023: (<b>a</b>) 16:00 UTC; (<b>b</b>) 17:00 UTC; (<b>c</b>) 18:00 UTC; (<b>d</b>) 19:00 UTC. The black lines indicate regional boundaries.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Rain gauge network of Tuscany (total number of gauges: 425). Each rain gauge location is marked by a red dot, while the black lines indicate the Italian regional boundaries (Tuscany is highlighted in green). The study area is represented by the cyan polygon and contains 323 rain gauges.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Rainfall accumulation from 15:30 UTC to 20:30 UTC, 2 November 2023, estimated through (<b>a</b>) ZR and (<b>b</b>) OK. The dots mark the rain gauge locations, while the black line represents the Tuscany boundaries.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Bias maps from 15:30 UTC to 20:30 UTC, 2 November 2023: (<b>a</b>) ZR, (<b>b</b>) OK, (<b>c</b>) KED, (<b>d</b>) CM, (<b>e</b>) MFB, (<b>f</b>) BSA, (<b>g</b>) STACC.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Temporal standard deviation of the error from 15:30 UTC to 20:30 UTC, 2 November 2023: (<b>a</b>) ZR, (<b>b</b>) OK, (<b>c</b>) KED, (<b>d</b>) CM, (<b>e</b>) MFB, (<b>f</b>) BSA, and (<b>g</b>) STACC.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Trend of (<b>a</b>) MAE, (<b>b</b>) RMSE, (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mi>r</mi> <mn>2</mn> </msup> </semantics></math>, and (<b>d</b>) bias as a function of the threshold <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>γ</mi> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Rainfall accumulation from (<b>a</b>) 15:30 UTC to 16:30 UTC and (<b>b</b>) 16:30 UTC to 17:30 UTC, 2 November 2023, estimated through ZR. The dots mark the rain gauge locations, while the black line represents the Tuscany boundaries. Rain gauges that measured the highest rainfall amount (indicated in brackets) are highlighted in red and labeled with a letter.</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 9650 KiB  
Article
Seasonal Variations in the Rainfall Kinetic Energy Estimation and the Dual-Polarization Radar Quantitative Precipitation Estimation Under Different Rainfall Types in the Tianshan Mountains, China
by Yong Zeng, Lianmei Yang, Zepeng Tong, Yufei Jiang, Abuduwaili Abulikemu, Xinyu Lu and Xiaomeng Li
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(20), 3859; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16203859 - 17 Oct 2024
Viewed by 727
Abstract
Raindrop size distribution (DSD) has an essential effect on rainfall kinetic energy estimation (RKEE) and dual-polarization radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE); DSD is a key factor for establishing a dual-polarization radar QPE scheme and RKEE scheme, particularly in mountainous areas. To improve the [...] Read more.
Raindrop size distribution (DSD) has an essential effect on rainfall kinetic energy estimation (RKEE) and dual-polarization radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE); DSD is a key factor for establishing a dual-polarization radar QPE scheme and RKEE scheme, particularly in mountainous areas. To improve the understanding of seasonal DSD-based RKEE, dual-polarization radar QPE, and the impact of rainfall types and classification methods, we investigated RKEE schemes and dual-polarimetric radar QPE algorithms across seasons and rainfall types based on two classic classification methods (BR09 and BR03) and DSD data from a disdrometer in the Tianshan Mountains during 2020–2022. Two RKEE schemes were established: the rainfall kinetic energy flux–rain rate (KEtimeR) and the rainfall kinetic energy content–mass-weighted mean diameter (KEmmDm). Both showed seasonal variation, whether it was stratiform rainfall or convective rainfall, under BR03 and BR09. Both schemes had excellent performance, especially the KEmmDm relationship across seasons and rainfall types. In addition, four QPE schemes for dual-polarimetric radar—R(Kdp), R(Zh), R(Kdp,Zdr), and R(Zh,Zdr)—were established, and exhibited characteristics that varied with season and rainfall type. Overall, the performance of the single-parameter algorithms was inferior to that of the double-parameter algorithms, and the performance of the R(Zh) algorithm was inferior to that of the R(Kdp) algorithm. The results of this study show that it is necessary to consider different rainfall types and seasons, as well as classification methods of rainfall types, when applying RKEE and dual-polarization radar QPE. In this process, choosing a suitable estimator—KEtime(R), KEmm(Dm), R(Kdp), R(Zh), R(Kdp,Zdr), or R(Zh,Zdr)—is key to improving the accuracy of estimating the rainfall KE and R. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Topography (m) and location of the Tianshan Mountains, and (<b>b</b>) locations of Zhaosu (red dot) and Xinyuan (black dot; Zeng et al. [<a href="#B55-remotesensing-16-03859" class="html-bibr">55</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 1 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) Topography (m) and location of the Tianshan Mountains, and (<b>b</b>) locations of Zhaosu (red dot) and Xinyuan (black dot; Zeng et al. [<a href="#B55-remotesensing-16-03859" class="html-bibr">55</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Seasonal variations in the distributions of (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span> and (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span> at Zhaosu.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Scatterplots of <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span> vs. <span class="html-italic">R</span> for the entire data and the fitted <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span>–<span class="html-italic">R</span> relationship across seasons at Zhaosu. Dashed lines represent the <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span>–<span class="html-italic">R</span> relationship reported by Zeng et al. [<a href="#B55-remotesensing-16-03859" class="html-bibr">55</a>], Seela et al. [<a href="#B83-remotesensing-16-03859" class="html-bibr">83</a>], and Wu et al. [<a href="#B36-remotesensing-16-03859" class="html-bibr">36</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Scatterplots of <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span> vs. <span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span> for the entire data and the seasonal variation in fitted <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span>–<span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span> at Zhaosu. Dashed lines represent the <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span>–<span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span> relationship reported by Zeng et al. [<a href="#B55-remotesensing-16-03859" class="html-bibr">55</a>] and Seela et al. [<a href="#B83-remotesensing-16-03859" class="html-bibr">83</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span> from RKEE schemes versus <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span> calculated from DSD for (<b>a</b>) the entire data, (<b>b</b>) spring, (<b>c</b>) summer, and (<b>d</b>) fall at Zhaosu. Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span> from RKEE schemes versus the <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span> calculated from DSD for (<b>e</b>) the entire data, (<b>f</b>) spring, (<b>g</b>) summer, and (<b>h</b>) fall at Zhaosu in Tianshan Mountains. Black dashed lines represent the 1:1 relationship.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Violin plots of seasonal variations in <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span> under (<b>a</b>) BR09_S, (<b>c</b>) BR09_C, (<b>e</b>) BR03_S, and (<b>g</b>) BR03_C, and violin plots of seasonal variations in <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span> under (<b>b</b>) BR09_S, (<b>d</b>) BR09_C, (<b>f</b>) BR03_S, and (<b>h</b>) BR03_C at Zhaosu.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scatterplots of <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span> vs. <span class="html-italic">R</span> for the entire data and the seasonal variation of the fitted <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span>–<span class="html-italic">R</span> relationship at Zhaosu under (<b>a</b>) BR09_S, (<b>b</b>) BR09_C, (<b>c</b>) BR03_S, and (<b>d</b>) BR03_C.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span> from RKEE schemes versus <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>time</sub></span> calculated from DSD for (<b>a</b>) the entire data, (<b>e</b>) spring, (<b>i</b>) summer, and (<b>m</b>) fall under BR09_S; those for (<b>b</b>) the entire data, (<b>f</b>) spring, (<b>j</b>) summer, and (<b>n</b>) fall under BR09_C; those for (<b>c</b>) the entire data, (<b>g</b>) spring, (<b>k</b>) summer, and (<b>o</b>) fall under BR03_S; and those for (<b>d</b>) the entire data, (<b>h</b>) spring, and (<b>l</b>) summer under BR03_C at Zhaosu. Black dashed lines represent the 1:1 relationship.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Scatterplots of <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span> vs. <span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span> for the entire data and the fitted <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span>–<span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span> relationship across seasons at Zhaosu under (<b>a</b>) BR09_S, (<b>b</b>) BR09_C, (<b>c</b>) BR03_S, and (<b>d</b>) BR03_C.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span> from RKEE schemes versus <span class="html-italic">KE<sub>mm</sub></span> calculated from DSD for (<b>a</b>) the entire data, (<b>e</b>) spring, (<b>i</b>) summer, and (<b>m</b>) fall under BR09_S; for (<b>b</b>) the entire data, (<b>f</b>) spring, (<b>j</b>) summer, and (<b>n</b>) fall under BR09_C; for (<b>c</b>) the entire data, (<b>g</b>) spring, (<b>k</b>) summer, and (<b>o</b>) fall under BR03_S; and for (<b>d</b>) the entire data, (<b>h</b>) spring, and (<b>l</b>) summer under BR03_C at Zhaosu. Black dashed lines represent the 1:1 relationship.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Seasonal variations in the distributions of (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span>, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>, and (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span> at Zhaosu.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">R</span> based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span>) algorithm for (<b>a</b>) the entire data, (<b>e</b>) spring, (<b>i</b>) summer, and (<b>m</b>) fall; estimated <span class="html-italic">R</span> based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span>) algorithm for (<b>b</b>) the entire data, (<b>f</b>) spring, (<b>j</b>) summer, and (<b>n</b>) fall; estimated <span class="html-italic">R</span> based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm for (<b>c</b>) the entire data, (<b>g</b>) spring, (<b>k</b>) summer, and (<b>o</b>) fall; and estimated <span class="html-italic">R</span> based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm for (<b>d</b>) the entire data, (<b>h</b>) spring, (<b>l</b>) summer, and (<b>p</b>) fall versus calculated <span class="html-italic">R</span> according to Equation (4) at Zhaosu. Black dashed lines represent the 1:1 relationship.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Seasonal variations in the distributions of <span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span> under (<b>a</b>) BR09_S, (<b>d</b>) BR09_C, (<b>g</b>) BR03_S, and (<b>j</b>) BR03_C; those of <span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span> under (<b>b</b>) BR09_S, (<b>e</b>) BR09_C, (<b>h</b>) BR03_S, and (<b>k</b>) BR03_C; and those of <span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span> under (<b>c</b>) BR09_S, (<b>f</b>) BR09_C, (<b>i</b>) BR03_S, and (<b>l</b>) BR03_C at Zhaosu.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">R</span> based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span>) algorithm during BR09_S for (<b>a</b>) the entire data, (<b>e</b>) spring, (<b>i</b>) summer, and (<b>m</b>) fall; that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span>) algorithm during BR09_S for (<b>b</b>) the entire data, (<b>f</b>) spring, (<b>j</b>) summer, and (<b>n</b>) fall; that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm during BR09_S for (<b>c</b>) the entire data, (<b>g</b>) spring, (<b>k</b>) summer, and (<b>o</b>) fall; and that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm during BR09_S for (<b>d</b>) the entire data, (<b>h</b>) spring, (<b>l</b>) summer, and (<b>p</b>) fall versus calculated <span class="html-italic">R</span> according to Equation (4) at Zhaosu. Black dashed lines represent the 1:1 relationship.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">R</span> based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span>) algorithm during BR09_C for (<b>a</b>) the entire data, (<b>e</b>) spring, (<b>i</b>) summer, and (<b>m</b>) fall; that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span>) algorithm during BR09_C for (<b>b</b>) the entire data, (<b>f</b>) spring, (<b>j</b>) summer, and (<b>n</b>) fall; that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm during BR09_C for (<b>c</b>) the entire data, (<b>g</b>) spring, (<b>k</b>) summer, and (<b>o</b>) fall; and that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm during BR09_C for (<b>d</b>) the entire data, (<b>h</b>) spring, (<b>l</b>) summer, and (<b>p</b>) fall versus calculated <span class="html-italic">R</span> according to Equation (4) at Zhaosu. Black dashed lines represent the 1:1 relationship.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">R</span> based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span>) algorithm during BR03_S for (<b>a</b>) the entire data, (<b>e</b>) spring, (<b>i</b>) summer, and (<b>m</b>) fall; that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span>) algorithm during BR03_S for (<b>b</b>) the entire data, (<b>f</b>) spring, (<b>j</b>) summer, and (<b>n</b>) fall; that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm during BR03_S for (<b>c</b>) the entire data, (<b>g</b>) spring, (<b>k</b>) summer, and (<b>o</b>) fall; and that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm during BR03_S for (<b>d</b>) the entire data, (<b>h</b>) spring, (<b>l</b>) summer, and (<b>p</b>) fall versus calculated <span class="html-italic">R</span> according to Equation (4) at Zhaosu. Black dashed lines represent the 1:1 relationship.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Scatterplot of estimated <span class="html-italic">R</span> based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span>) algorithm during BR03_C for (<b>a</b>) the entire data, (<b>e</b>) spring, and (<b>i</b>) summer; that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span>) algorithm during BR03_C for (<b>b</b>) the entire data, (<b>f</b>) spring, and (<b>j</b>) summer; that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">Z<sub>h</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm during BR03_C for (<b>c</b>) the entire data, (<b>g</b>) spring, and (<b>k</b>) summer; and that based on the <span class="html-italic">R</span>(<span class="html-italic">K<sub>dp</sub></span><sub>,</sub><span class="html-italic">Z<sub>dr</sub></span>) algorithm during BR03_C for (<b>d</b>) the entire data, (<b>h</b>) spring, and (<b>l</b>) summer versus calculated <span class="html-italic">R</span> according to Equation (4) at Zhaosu. Black dashed lines represent the 1:1 relationship.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 18273 KiB  
Article
Quantitative Precipitation Estimation Using Weather Radar Data and Machine Learning Algorithms for the Southern Region of Brazil
by Fernanda F. Verdelho, Cesar Beneti, Luis G. Pavam, Leonardo Calvetti, Luiz E. S. Oliveira and Marco A. Zanata Alves
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(11), 1971; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16111971 - 30 May 2024
Viewed by 1791
Abstract
In addressing the challenges of quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) using weather radar, the importance of enhancing the rainfall estimates for applications such as flash flood forecasting and hydropower generation management is recognized. This study employed dual-polarization weather radar data to refine the traditional [...] Read more.
In addressing the challenges of quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) using weather radar, the importance of enhancing the rainfall estimates for applications such as flash flood forecasting and hydropower generation management is recognized. This study employed dual-polarization weather radar data to refine the traditional Z–R relationship, which often needs higher accuracy in areas with complex meteorological phenomena. Utilizing tree-based machine learning algorithms, such as random forest and gradient boosting, this research analyzed polarimetric variables to capture the intricate patterns within the Z–R relationship. The results highlight machine learning’s potential to improve the precision of precipitation estimation, especially under challenging weather conditions. Integrating meteorological insights with advanced machine learning techniques is a remarkable achievement toward a more precise and adaptable precipitation estimation method. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advance of Radar Meteorology and Hydrology II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of South America with an inset presenting our study site. In the study site inset, the red circle defines the location of the weather radar, and the gray circle, its surveillance area. Also depicted in the study site are the rain gauges, presented as blue triangles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Z–R relationships used for operational purposes in the context of Paraná state, depicting various methodologies. The dashed blue line represents the stratiform precipitation relationship by [<a href="#B4-remotesensing-16-01971" class="html-bibr">4</a>], the red line illustrates the convective precipitation relationship [<a href="#B14-remotesensing-16-01971" class="html-bibr">14</a>], and the green line depicts the convective approach by [<a href="#B13-remotesensing-16-01971" class="html-bibr">13</a>]. The x-axis represents the precipitation rate in millimeters per hour (mm/h), and the y-axis represents the reflectivity factor in decibels relative to Z (dBZ). An increase in precipitation rate entails an increase in the reflectivity factor. Adapted from [<a href="#B16-remotesensing-16-01971" class="html-bibr">16</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The distribution of the number of events of precipitation data accumulated in 15 min intervals after data cleaning in the period of 2018–2022. Values below 0.2 mm/15 min were not considered. Based on [<a href="#B11-remotesensing-16-01971" class="html-bibr">11</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>A diagram of the machine learning model’s workflow. It presents the data flow and the hybrid model. The classifier is used to verify whether there is rain. If so, the regressor is used to estimate the amount. Finally, the model’s performance is measured through metrics such as the mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatter plots comparing the observed and predicted (estimated) rainfall from various models on the test dataset, expressed in mm per 15 min. Each panel represents a different model, denoted by codes such as RFRF or GBGB, among others, at the top of each plot. The red lines indicate the line of perfect agreement (y = x), while the black dots represent the actual data points. The metrics include the coefficient of determination (R²), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE), providing a quantitative view of each model’s accuracy.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Analysis of the prediction accuracy for rainfall events above 5 mm observed per 15 min, using two machine learning models: Random Forest–Random Forest and Gradient Boosting–Gradient Boosting. Panels (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) show data points accepted by the filters, where the predictions closely aligned with the observations are depicted in red. Panels (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) depict data points rejected by the filters, where predictions that significantly diverged from the observations are shown in blue. The solid black line represents the accuracy of the prediction, and the dashed lines show the extent of deviation that is acceptable. Each letter from a to h corresponds to specific outlier points detailed in the text, highlighting the necessity of applying filters to improve the model performance.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>A comparison of the radar reflectivity and estimated precipitation rates across multiple algorithms and theoretical Z–R relationships on 11 October 2022, at 11:00 UTC. Panel (<b>a</b>) displays the radar reflectivity map with values ranging from −20 to 60 dBZ, indicating the intensity of the radar echo. Panels (<b>b</b>–<b>h</b>) show the precipitation rates predicted by various models (RFRF, GBGB, RFGB, GBRF, DSD Calheiros, MP, NEXRAD) across the same geographic region, measured in mm per 15 min. These maps provide insights into how the different algorithms interpret reflectivity data to estimate precipitation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>A comparison and subtractive analysis of the precipitation rate estimates from different stations and models on 22 October 2022, at 11:30 UTC. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) illustrate the differences in precipitation rate (mm per 15 min) as estimated by algorithms RFRF_sub, GBGB_sub, OC_sub, DSD_sub, MP_sub, and NEXRAD_sub, respectively. These maps highlight areas of significant discrepancy (in yellow and green) against the background of minimal or no discrepancy (in purple), showing how each model’s prediction varies from the observed station data. The color scale represents the magnitude of the discrepancy, providing a visual comparison of the model accuracy across the region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>A comparison of the radar reflectivity and estimated precipitation rates across multiple algorithms and theoretical Z–R relationships on 12 July 2023, at 22:30 UTC. Panel (<b>a</b>) displays the radar reflectivity map with values ranging from −20 to 60 dBZ, indicating the intensity of the radar echo. Panels (<b>b</b>–<b>h</b>) show the precipitation rates predicted by various models (RFRF, GBGB, RFGB, GBRF, DSD Calheiros, MP, NEXRAD) across the same geographic region, measured in mm per 15 min. These maps provide insights into how the different algorithms interpret reflectivity data to estimate precipitation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>A comparison and subtractive analysis of the precipitation rate estimates from different stations and models on 12 July 2023, at 22:30 UTC. Panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) illustrate the differences in the precipitation rate (mm per 15 min) as estimated by algorithms RFRF_sub, GBGB_sub, OC_sub, DSD_sub, MP_sub, and NEXRAD_sub, respectively. These maps highlight areas of significant discrepancy (in yellow and green) against the background of minimal or no discrepancy (in purple), showing how each model’s prediction varies from the observed station data. The color scale represents the magnitude of the discrepancy, providing a visual comparison of the model accuracy across the region.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 3340 KiB  
Article
A Quantitative Precipitation Estimation Method Based on 3D Radar Reflectivity Inputs
by Yanqin Wen, Jun Zhang, Di Wang, Xianming Peng and Ping Wang
Symmetry 2024, 16(5), 555; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16050555 - 3 May 2024
Viewed by 1346
Abstract
Quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) by radar observation data is a crucial aspect of meteorological forecasting operations. Accurate QPE plays a significant role in mitigating the impact of severe convective weather. Traditional QPE methods mainly employ an exponential Z–R relationship to map the radar [...] Read more.
Quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) by radar observation data is a crucial aspect of meteorological forecasting operations. Accurate QPE plays a significant role in mitigating the impact of severe convective weather. Traditional QPE methods mainly employ an exponential Z–R relationship to map the radar reflectivity to precipitation intensity on a point-to-point basis. However, this isolated point-to-point transformation lacks an effective representation of convective systems. Deep learning-based methods can learn the evolution patterns of convective systems from rich historical data. However, current models often rely on 2 km-height CAPPI images, which struggle to capture the complex vertical motions within convective systems. To address this, we propose a novel QPE model: combining the classic extrapolation model ConvLSTM with Unet for an encoder-decoder module assembly. Meanwhile, we utilize three-dimensional radar echo images as inputs and introduce the convolutional block attention module (CBAM) to guide the model to focus on individual cells most likely to trigger intense precipitation, which is symmetrically built on both channel and spatial attention modules. We also employ asymmetry in training using weighted mean squared error to make the model concentrate more on heavy precipitation events which are prone to severe disasters. We conduct experiments using radar data from North China and Eastern China. For precipitation above 1 mm, the proposed model achieves 0.6769 and 0.7910 for CSI and HSS, respectively. The results indicate that compared to other methods, our model significantly enhances precipitation prediction accuracy, with a more pronounced improvement in forecasting accuracy for heavy precipitation events. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Optimization of Asymmetric and Symmetric Algorithms)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Radar Station Distribution and Scanning Range.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Rain Gauge Station Distribution and Interpolated 2D Precipitation Grid in Tanggu Area: (<b>a</b>) Rain Gauge Station Distribution and Masked Ocean Observations; (<b>b</b>) Precipitation Grid.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic Representation of ConvLSTM Cell Structure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Schematic Representation of Convolutional Block Attention Module.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Diagram of the QPE Model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Evaluation scores of different models under various thresholds. (<b>a</b>) Critical success index (CSI); (<b>b</b>) Root mean square error (RMSE).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Visual comparison of different quantitative precipitation estimation methods—Case Study 1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Visual comparison of different quantitative precipitation estimation methods—Case Study 2.</p>
Full article ">
26 pages, 12240 KiB  
Article
Application of Radar-Based Precipitation Data Improves the Effectiveness of Urban Inundation Forecasting
by Doan Quang Tri, Nguyen Vinh Thu, Bui Thi Khanh Hoa, Hoang Anh Nguyen-Thi, Vo Van Hoa, Le Thi Hue, Dao Tien Dat and Ha T. T. Pham
Sustainability 2024, 16(9), 3736; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093736 - 29 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1408
Abstract
Using radar to estimate and forecast precipitation as input for hydrological models has become increasingly popular in recent years because of its superior spatial and temporal simulation compared with using rain gauge data. This study used radar-based quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) to select [...] Read more.
Using radar to estimate and forecast precipitation as input for hydrological models has become increasingly popular in recent years because of its superior spatial and temporal simulation compared with using rain gauge data. This study used radar-based quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) to select the optimal parameter set for the MIKE URBAN hydrological model and radar-based quantitative precipitation forecasting (QPF) to simulate inundation in Nam Dinh city, Vietnam. The results show the following: (1) radar has the potential to improve the modeling and provide the data needed for real-time smart control if proper bias adjustment is obtained and the risk of underestimated flows after heavy rain is minimized, and (2) the MIKE URBAN model used to calculate two simulation scenarios with rain gauge data and QPE data showed effectiveness in combining the application of radar-based precipitation for the forecasting and warning of urban floods in Nam Dinh city. The results in Scenario 2 with rainfall forecast data from radar provide better simulation results. The average relative error in Scenario 2 is 9%, while the average relative error in Scenario 1 is 15%. Using the grid radar-based precipitation forecasting as input data for the MIKE URBAN model significantly reduces the error between the observed water depth and the simulated results compared with the case using an input rain gauge measured at Nam Dinh station (the difference in inundation level of Scenario 2 using radar-based precipitation is 0.005 m, and it is 0.03 m in Scenario 1). The results obtained using the QPE and QPF radar as input for the MIKE URBAN model will be the basis for establishing an operational forecasting system for the Northern Delta and Midland Regional Hydro-Meteorological Center, Viet Nam Meteorological and Hydrological Administration. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study location map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The flowchart of the study structure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The modular structure of MIKE URBAN.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Illustrated flow of information in hydrological modeling.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>DEM of Nam Dinh city.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Inundation survey location map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Nam Dinh drainage system in the MIKE URBAN model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Evaluating QPE and QPF at Xuan Thuy station for the three rainfall events: (<b>a</b>) Event 1, (<b>b</b>) Event 2, (<b>c</b>) Event 3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Evaluating QPE and QPF at Nam Dinh station for the three rainfall events: (<b>a</b>) Event 1, (<b>b</b>) Event 2, (<b>c</b>) Event 3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Evaluating QPE and QPF at Lieu De station for the three rainfall events: (<b>a</b>) Event 1, (<b>b</b>) Event 2, (<b>c</b>) Event 3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Evaluating QPE and QPF at Vu Ban station for the three rainfall events: (<b>a</b>) Event 1, (<b>b</b>) Event 2, (<b>c</b>) Event 3.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Results of water depth: (<b>a</b>) calibration, (<b>b</b>) validation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Simulated and observed results error from the two scenarios: (<b>a</b>) water depth, (<b>b</b>) error (%), (<b>c</b>) the difference in water depth between the two scenarios with the survey value (∆H).</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Inundation map of Nam Dinh city: (<b>a</b>) Scenario 1, (<b>b</b>) Scenario 2.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 10017 KiB  
Article
Seasonal Variation in Vertical Structure for Stratiform Rain at Mêdog Site in Southeastern Tibetan Plateau
by Jiaqi Wen, Gaili Wang, Renran Zhou, Ran Li, Suolang Zhaxi and Maqiao Bai
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(7), 1230; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16071230 - 30 Mar 2024
Viewed by 1139
Abstract
Mêdog is located at the entrance of the water vapor channel of the Yarlung Tsangpo Great Canyon on the southeastern Tibetan Plateau (TP). In this study, the seasonal variation in the microphysical vertical structure of stratiform precipitation at the Mêdog site in 2022 [...] Read more.
Mêdog is located at the entrance of the water vapor channel of the Yarlung Tsangpo Great Canyon on the southeastern Tibetan Plateau (TP). In this study, the seasonal variation in the microphysical vertical structure of stratiform precipitation at the Mêdog site in 2022 was investigated using micro rain radar (MRR) observations, as there is a lack of similar studies in this region. The average melting layer height is the lowest in February, after which it gradually increases, reaches its peak in August, and then gradually decreases. For lower rain categories, the vertical distribution of small drops remains uniform in winter below the melting layer. The medium-sized drops show slight increases, leading to negative gradients in the microphysical profiles. Slight or evident decreases in concentrations of small drops are observed with decreasing height in the premonsoon, monsoon, and postmonsoon seasons, likely due to significant evaporation. The radar reflectivity, rain rate, and liquid water content profiles decrease with decreasing height according to the decrease in concentrations of small drops. With increasing rain rate, the drop size distribution (DSD) displays significant variations in winter, and the fall velocity decreases rapidly with decreasing height. In the premonsoon, monsoon, and postmonsoon seasons, the concentrations of large drops significantly decrease below the melting layer because of the breakup mechanism, leading to the decreases in the fall velocity profiles with decreasing height during these seasons. Raindrops with sizes ranging from 0.3–0.5 mm are predominant in terms of the total drop number concentration in all seasons. Precipitation in winter and postmonsoon seasons is mainly characterized by small raindrops, while that in premonsoon and monsoon seasons mainly comprises medium-sized raindrops. Understanding the seasonal variation in the vertical structure of precipitation in Mêdog will improve the radar quantitative estimation and the use of microphysical parameterization schemes in numerical weather forecast models over the TP. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advance of Radar Meteorology and Hydrology II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the Mêdog National Climate Observatory (red solid dots) and topography (shaded, unit: m) of the Tibetan Plateau, which are superimposed with the mean vertical integral of the water vapor flux (unit: kg m<sup>−1</sup> s<sup>−1</sup>) in different seasons in 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Comparison of rain rates (5 min average) between the MRR at 150 m above ground and rain gauge data of the precipitation process from 0100 to 0800 (local standard time) on 14 May 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) The GFV time series calculated from the MRR based on precipitation events from 0000 LT to 0700 LST on 10 February 2022. (<b>b</b>) The corresponding vertical profile of reflectivity from the MRR, in which the solid red line (the solid black line) marks the BB bottom calculated by the maximum GFV (the BB top calculated by the gradient of Ze).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) The GFV time series calculated from the MRR based on precipitation events from 0000 LT to 0700 LST on 10 February 2022. (<b>b</b>) The corresponding vertical profile of reflectivity from the MRR, in which the solid red line (the solid black line) marks the BB bottom calculated by the maximum GFV (the BB top calculated by the gradient of Ze).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Monthly variation in the BB bottom height based on the GFV method in the Mêdog region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Vertical profiles of the radar reflectivity factor for each category in the four seasons. R1: 0.1 ≤ R &lt; 1.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R2: 1.0 ≤ R &lt; 2.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R3: 2.0 ≤ R &lt; 5.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, and R4: 5.0 ≤ R &lt; 10.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>: (<b>a</b>) winter; (<b>b</b>) premonsoon; (<b>c</b>) monsoon; and (<b>d</b>) postmonsoon.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Vertical profiles of the fall velocity for each category in the four seasons. R1: 0.1 ≤ R &lt; 1.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R2: 1.0 ≤ R &lt; 2.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R3: 2.0 ≤ R &lt; 5.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, and R4: 5.0 ≤ R &lt; 10.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>: (<b>a</b>) winter; (<b>b</b>) premonsoon; (<b>c</b>) monsoon; and (<b>d</b>) postmonsoon.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Vertical profiles of the rain rate for each category in the four seasons. R1: 0.1 ≤ R &lt; 1.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R2: 1.0 ≤ R &lt; 2.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R3: 2.0 ≤ R &lt; 5.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, and R4: 5.0 ≤ R &lt; 10.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>: (<b>a</b>) winter; (<b>b</b>) premonsoon; (<b>c</b>) monsoon; and (<b>d</b>) postmonsoon.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Vertical profiles of the liquid water content for each category in the four seasons. R1: 0.1 ≤ R &lt; 1.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R2: 1.0 ≤ R &lt; 2.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R3: 2.0 ≤ R &lt; 5.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, and R4: 5.0 ≤ R &lt; 10.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>: (<b>a</b>) winter; (<b>b</b>) premonsoon; (<b>c</b>) monsoon; and (<b>d</b>) postmonsoon.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Vertical profiles of the liquid water content for each category in the four seasons. R1: 0.1 ≤ R &lt; 1.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R2: 1.0 ≤ R &lt; 2.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, R3: 2.0 ≤ R &lt; 5.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>, and R4: 5.0 ≤ R &lt; 10.0 mm h<sup>−1</sup>: (<b>a</b>) winter; (<b>b</b>) premonsoon; (<b>c</b>) monsoon; and (<b>d</b>) postmonsoon.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Vertical structure of the DSD in different rain categories in the winter (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>), premonsoon (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>), monsoon (<b>i</b>–<b>l</b>), and postmonsoon (<b>m</b>–<b>p</b>) seasons.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Seasonal variation in the average DSD at several heights.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Contributions of different diameter categories to the total number concentration <span class="html-italic">N<sub>t</sub></span> (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>g</b>) and precipitation intensity <span class="html-italic">R</span> (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>h</b>) for stratiform samples in each season.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 4839 KiB  
Article
The Extreme Rainfall Events of the 2020 Typhoon Season in Vietnam as Seen by Seven Different Precipitation Products
by Giacomo Roversi, Marco Pancaldi, William Cossich, Daniele Corradini, Thanh Thi Nhat Nguyen, Thu Vinh Nguyen and Federico Porcu’
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(5), 805; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050805 - 25 Feb 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1962
Abstract
A series of typhoons and tropical storms have produced extreme precipitation events in Vietnam during the first part of the 2020 monsoon season: events of this magnitude pose significant challenges to remote sensing Quantitative Precipitation Estimation (QPE) techniques. The weather-monitoring needs of modern [...] Read more.
A series of typhoons and tropical storms have produced extreme precipitation events in Vietnam during the first part of the 2020 monsoon season: events of this magnitude pose significant challenges to remote sensing Quantitative Precipitation Estimation (QPE) techniques. The weather-monitoring needs of modern human activities require that these challenges be overcome. In order to address this issue, in this work, seven precipitation products were validated with high spatial and temporal detail against over 1200 rain gauges in Vietnam during six case studies tailored around the most intense events of 2020. The data sources included the Vietnamese weather radar network, IMERG Early run and Final run, the South Korean GEO-KOMPSAT-2A and Chinese FengYun-4A geostationary satellites, DPR on board the GPM-Core Observatory, and European ERA5-Land reanalysis. All products were resampled to a standardized 0.02° grid and compared at hourly scale with ground stations measurements. The results indicated that the radars product was the most capable of reproducing the information collected by the rain gauges during the selected extreme events, with a correlation coefficient of 0.70 and a coefficient of variation of 1.38. However, it exhibited some underestimation, approximately 30%, in both occurrence and intensity. Conversely, geostationary products tended to overestimate moderate rain rates (FY-4A) and areas with low precipitation (GK-2A). More complex products such as ERA5-Land and IMERG failed to capture the highest intensities typical of extreme events, while GPM-DPR showed promising results in detecting the highest rain rates, but its capability to observe isolated events was limited by its intermittent coverage. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of Vietnam with AWS and radar locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Map of various statistics for the AWS reference dataset. (<b>a</b>) Number of wet hours for each grid box. (<b>b</b>) Average rain rate (mm/h) among wet hours. (<b>c</b>) Maximum rain rate (mm/h) among wet hours. (<b>d</b>) Standard deviation of the rain rate (mm/h) among wet hours.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Products remapping output: intercomparison map of the 8 precipitation products for the same time interval (namely, 21.00 UTC of 1 August 2020). Grey grid boxes are the areas without any data. (<b>a</b>) AWS; (<b>b</b>) radars composite; (<b>c</b>) GEO-KOMPSAT-2A; (<b>d</b>) Fengyun-4A; (<b>e</b>) GPM-DPR; (<b>f</b>) IMERG-Early run; (<b>g</b>) IMERG-Final run; (<b>h</b>) ERA5-Land total precipitation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Maps of the average rain rates of all products over the common grid: (<b>a</b>) AWS; (<b>b</b>) radars; (<b>c</b>) GK-2A; (<b>d</b>) FY-4A; (<b>e</b>) GPM-DPR; (<b>f</b>) IMERG-Early run; (<b>g</b>) IMERG-Final run; (<b>h</b>) ERA5-Land.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Maps of the bias of all products relative to the AWS reference product: (<b>a</b>) AWS (reference data); (<b>b</b>) radars; (<b>c</b>) GK-2A; (<b>d</b>) FY-4A; (<b>e</b>) GPM-DPR; (<b>f</b>) IMERG-Early run; (<b>g</b>) IMERG-Final run; (<b>h</b>) ERA5-Land.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Distributions of measured/estimated precipitation along the full spectrum of intensity, or probability density functions (PDFs). Areas under the curves are normalized to 1. GPM-DPR distribution is marked by single points connected by a dashed line, in the effort to relate its different sample size and also overcome its intrinsic noisiness.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of each product (y-axis) against the AWS reference (x-axis) during all considered hours (702) over all the selected grid boxes (1229), excluding dry AWS samples. (<b>a</b>) Histogram of reference data from AWS. (<b>b</b>–<b>h</b>) Density scatterplots of all products (y-axis) against the corresponding AWS measurements (x-axis): radars (<b>b</b>); GK-2A (<b>c</b>); FY-4A (<b>d</b>); GPM-DPR (<b>e</b>); IMERG-Early run (<b>f</b>); IMERG-Final run (<b>g</b>); ERA5-Land (<b>h</b>). All axes are logarithmic.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>mKGE decomposition visualized in an Euclidean 3D space. Optimal point <math display="inline"><semantics> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mn>1</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>1</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>1</mn> </mfenced> </semantics></math> is shown with a black dot. The axis <math display="inline"><semantics> <mfenced separators="" open="(" close=")"> <mi>C</mi> <mi>C</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mn>1</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>1</mn> </mfenced> </semantics></math> is marked with a black line. The plane <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>μ</mi> <mi>e</mi> </msub> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi>μ</mi> <mi>o</mi> </msub> <mo>=</mo> <mn>1</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> is colored in partially transparent blue. Projections of the data points over this plane are the lighter semi-transparent dots, and the projection lines are dashed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Trends of a subset of categorical and continuous indicators varying rain/no-rain thresholds from 0.1 to 30 mm/h: (<b>a</b>) POD; (<b>b</b>) FAR; (<b>c</b>) mBIAS; (<b>d</b>) ETS; (<b>e</b>) ME; (<b>f</b>) MAE; (<b>g</b>) CC; (<b>h</b>) CV.</p>
Full article ">
12 pages, 29525 KiB  
Communication
Design and Implementation of K-Band Electromagnetic Wave Rain Gauge System
by Jeongho Choi and Sanghun Lim
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(1), 6; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16010006 - 19 Dec 2023
Viewed by 1158
Abstract
In order to prevent and manage damage caused by localized torrential downpours, the quantitative observation of rainfall is crucial. Considering the spatial complexity and vertical variability of rainfall, it is important to obtain low-altitude, high-resolution radar observations to reduce uncertainty in radar rainfall [...] Read more.
In order to prevent and manage damage caused by localized torrential downpours, the quantitative observation of rainfall is crucial. Considering the spatial complexity and vertical variability of rainfall, it is important to obtain low-altitude, high-resolution radar observations to reduce uncertainty in radar rainfall estimates. In this paper, we present an electromagnetic wave rainfall gauge system (EWRG) that detects rainfall within the observation area and estimates the areal rainfall using electromagnetic waves. The EWRG system was developed based on a subminiature size antenna, a K-band dual-polarization transceiver, and advanced high-resolution, high-speed signal processing technology. The system design and signal processing techniques are described in detail. The EWRG has the advantage of overcoming the limitations of conventional cylindrical ground rain gauges, such as the contamination and spatial inaccuracy of rain gauges, which cause uncertainty in quantitative precipitation measurement. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advance of Radar Meteorology and Hydrology II)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>EWRG system diagram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The EWRG transceiver.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>LFM transmission and reception concept diagram. TX: transmitted signal, RX: received signal.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Block diagram of EWRG transmitter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>LFM waveform (<b>a</b>) at horizontal and (<b>b</b>) at vertical port.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The power budget of the transmitter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Frequency stability of the transmitter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Block diagram of EWRG receiver.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The power budget of the receiver.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) The 3D design and (<b>b</b>) block diagram of the antenna module.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Implemented antenna unit (<b>a</b>) antenna, (<b>b</b>) ACU, and (<b>c</b>) radome.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Horizontal and (<b>b</b>) vertical antenna beam pattern at 24.15 GHz.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Implemented signal processor (<b>a</b>) internal shape, (<b>b</b>) frontal shape.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Signal processing procedure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Meteorological variables.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Rainfall observation image by EWRG (09/07/18 16:00, Yeoncheon), reflectivity at H (Z<sub>H</sub>), reflectivity at V (Z<sub>V</sub>), Doppler velocity at H (V<sub>H</sub>), Doppler velocity at V (V<sub>V</sub>), spectrum width at H (W<sub>H</sub>), differential reflectivity (ZDR), differential phase difference (phiDP), correlation coefficient (RhoHV), signal-to-noise ratio at H (SNR<sub>H</sub>), signal-to-noise ratio at V (SNR<sub>V</sub>), signal quality index at H (SQi<sub>H</sub>), and signal quality index at V (SQi<sub>V</sub>).</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 11929 KiB  
Article
Correcting for Mobile X-Band Weather Radar Tilt Using Solar Interference
by David Dufton, Lindsay Bennett, John R. Wallbank and Ryan R. Neely
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(24), 5637; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15245637 - 5 Dec 2023
Viewed by 1338
Abstract
Precise knowledge of the antenna pointing direction is a key facet to ensure the accuracy of observations from scanning weather radars. The sun is an often-used reference point to aid accurate alignment of weather radar systems and is particularly useful when observed as [...] Read more.
Precise knowledge of the antenna pointing direction is a key facet to ensure the accuracy of observations from scanning weather radars. The sun is an often-used reference point to aid accurate alignment of weather radar systems and is particularly useful when observed as interference during normal scanning operations. In this study, we combine two online solar interference approaches to determine the pointing accuracy of an X-band mobile weather radar system deployed for 26 months in northern England (54.517°N, 3.615°W). During the deployment, several shifts in the tilt of the radar system are diagnosed between site visits. One extended period of time (>11 months) is shown to have a changing tilt that is independent of human intervention. To verify the corrections derived from this combined approach, quantitative precipitation estimates (QPEs) from the radar system are compared to surface observations: an approach that takes advantage of the variations in the magnitude of partial beam blockage corrections required due to tilting of the radar system close to mountainous terrain. The observed improvements in QPE performance after correction support the use of the derived tilt corrections for further applications using the corrected dataset. Finally, recommendations for future deployments are made, with particular focus on higher latitudes where solar interference spikes show more seasonality than those at mid-latitudes. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>NXPol-1 deployed in Sandwith, Cumbria for the RAiN-E project. The two shipping containers are installed on a scaffolding frame over an uneven grassed surface. The scaffolding extends to form an access staircase and safety railings for working on NXPol-1 during the deployment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Bullseye plots for 1 February to 22 March 2017, during which time the SNR threshold was reduced. The solar power delta is the difference between the power observed by the radar and the reference solar power (see <a href="#sec3dot2-remotesensing-15-05637" class="html-sec">Section 3.2</a> for more details). The red dashed line is the beam ellipse predicted by a 5-parameter fit with the red cross denoting the pointing offset from that fit. All data were collected while NXPol-1 was deployed at Chilbolton Observatory.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Solar interference observations identified by the BALTRAD RAVE scansun toolbox. Panel (<b>A</b>) shows the difference between radar azimuth and solar azimuth, where each hit is shaded by its radar-measured elevation. Panel (<b>B</b>) shows the difference between radar elevation and solar elevation, where each hit is shaded by its radar-measured azimuth. Panel (<b>C</b>) indicates the observed logarithmic solar flux (dBsfu) for each observation, shaded by radar azimuth, along with a time series of the converted DRAO observations used as a reference (brown line). Solid vertical lines on each panel indicate the maintenance dates listed in <a href="#remotesensing-15-05637-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. In total, 2907 solar hits are shown on each panel.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Diagnostic plots for Period 8. The top panel displays the elevation offset of each solar hit as a function of radar azimuth. The solid black line is the fitted tilt model, with the declination (D), Inclination (I) and fixed elevation offset (E) shown on the plot legend. The bottom left plot is a time series of elevation offset for the period being investigated. The bottom right plot is the bullseye fit, with azimuth offset (radar–sun) on the <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis and elevation offset on the <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis. The fitted parameters (azimuth offset (Az), elevation offset (El) and solar power delta (P)) are shown on the plot along with the number of solar hits during the period after outlier removal (N) and with the RMSE of the second fit (RMSE), with N and RMSE for the first fit (including outliers) included in brackets. In all panels, the solar power delta of each individual hit is shown through the colour shading.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Solar disk plots of observed solar interference before (<b>left</b>) and after (<b>right</b>) correction for tilt and pointing offset. Elevation offset is shown on the <span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis and azimuth offset on the <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis. Data for the entire field campaign (November 2018 to December 2020) are shown, with the colour scale indicating the difference between the observed solar power flux and the closest-time DRAO observations scaled to X-band.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Terrain altitude within 150 km of the radar location, show by the red dot (<b>left panel</b>) and the resulting beam blocked fraction for a fixed elevation angle of 0.5°(<b>right panel</b>). The radar is located at a height of 133m above mean sea level (amsl).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Catchment average performance statistics for the full campaign period, calculated using radar QPEs without the tilt correction (<b>left column</b>) and with the tilt correction (<b>central column</b>) and showing the difference between the two ((<b>right column</b>); shows corrected minus uncorrected). Catchment outlines are also shown on the figures, with a bold outline being used for catchments with lowest usable beam elevations of less than 2 km. The blue dot on all panels is the location of NXPol-1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Boxplots summarising catchment average performance statistics calculated using radar QPEs without the tilt correction (light green bars) and with the tilt correction (darker green bars) for the 85 catchments with mean lowest useable elevations of the radar beam of less than 2 km. The coloured box displays the interquartile range, the median is shown as the horizontal black line therein, and the typical range of the statistic is shown as black dashed lines extending to a maximum of 1.5 times the interquartile range, with outliers beyond this range shown as hollow circles. An outlier for a single catchment in Period 5 lies beyond the range of the boxplot showing MAPE.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Manual raster scan results plotted as solar azimuth versus elevation offset (black crosses) along with the fitted tilt result (grey dashed line), with the declination (D), inclination (I) and fixed elevation offset (E) shown on the plot legend.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 3597 KiB  
Article
Application of Machine Learning Techniques to Improve Multi-Radar Mosaic Precipitation Estimates in Shanghai
by Rui Wang, Hai Chu, Qiyang Liu, Bo Chen, Xin Zhang, Xuliang Fan, Junjing Wu, Kang Xu, Fulin Jiang and Lei Chen
Atmosphere 2023, 14(9), 1364; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14091364 - 29 Aug 2023
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1177
Abstract
In this study, we applied an explainable machine learning technique based on the LightGBM method, a category of gradient boosting decision tree algorithm, to conduct a quantitative radar precipitation estimation and move to understand the underlying reasons for excellent estimations. By introducing 3D [...] Read more.
In this study, we applied an explainable machine learning technique based on the LightGBM method, a category of gradient boosting decision tree algorithm, to conduct a quantitative radar precipitation estimation and move to understand the underlying reasons for excellent estimations. By introducing 3D grid radar reflectivity data into the LightGBM algorithm, we constructed three LightGBM models, including 2D and 3D LightGBM models. Ten groups of experiments were carried out to compare the performances of the LightGBM models with traditional Z–R relationship methods. To further assess the performances of the LightGBM models, rainfall events with 11,483 total samples during August-September of 2022 were used for statistical analysis, and two heavy rainfall events were specifically chosen for the spatial distribution evaluation. The results from both the statistical analysis and spatial distribution demonstrate that the performance of the LightGBM 3D model with nine points is the best method for quantitative precipitation estimation in this study. Through analyzing the explainability of the LightGBM models from Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) regression values, it can be inferred that the superior performance of the LightGBM 3D model is mainly attributed to its consideration of the rain gauge station attributes, diurnal variation characteristics, and the influence of spatial offset. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Extreme Precipitation Simulation)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The location of (<b>a</b>) rain gauges (depicted as blue dots) within the study area, (<b>b</b>) LightGBM method with surrounding 9 points, and (<b>c</b>) LightGBM method with single point.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) magnitude for the LightGBM 3D model with single points (Exe 1).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The top 20 input variables with the largest SHAP value magnitudes by Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) magnitude for the LightGBM 3D model with 9 points (Exe 2).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Scatterplots of 10 min cumulative precipitation with LightGBM 3D (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and Z–R (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) against the reflectivity of radar data for the testing dataset in August 2022 (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and the testing dataset during September–October 2022 (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatterplots of LightGBM 3D QPEs and Z–R QPEs versus the observed 10 min cumulative precipitation for the testing dataset in August 2022 (<b>a</b>) and the testing dataset during September–October 2022 (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The frequency of precipitation difference between the rain gauge observation and QPE obtained from LightGBM 3D (<b>a</b>), Z–R ref02 (<b>b</b>), LightGBM 2D (<b>c</b>), and Z–R CR in August 2022 (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The (<b>a</b>) MAE and (<b>b</b>) MSLE of radar QPE obtained from different methods for different thresholds of precipitation in August 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The composite reflectivity (CR) values (dBZ) obtained from weather radar network data at 0300 UTC (<b>a</b>), 0400 UTC (<b>b</b>), 0500 UTC (<b>c</b>), 0600 UTC (<b>d</b>) 6 August 2022 and 0600 UTC (<b>e</b>), 0700 UTC (<b>f</b>), 0800 UTC (<b>g</b>), 0900 UTC (<b>h</b>) 12 September 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The observed rainfall (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and the radar QPE (mm/10 min) obtained from LightGBM 3D (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>), Z–R Ref01 (<b>i</b>–<b>l</b>), Z–R Ref03 (<b>m</b>–<b>p</b>), LightGBM 2D (<b>q</b>–<b>t</b>), and Z–R CR (<b>u</b>–<b>x</b>) at 0300, 0400, 0500 and 0600 UTC 6 August 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>As in <a href="#atmosphere-14-01364-f009" class="html-fig">Figure 9</a> except for 0600, 0700, 0800, and 0900 UTC 12 September 2022.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 7705 KiB  
Article
Spatial Variability of Raindrop Size Distribution at Beijing City Scale and Its Implications for Polarimetric Radar QPE
by Zhe Zhang, Huiqi Li, Donghuan Li and Youcun Qi
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(16), 3964; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15163964 - 10 Aug 2023
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 1450
Abstract
Understanding the characteristics of the raindrop size distribution (DSD) is crucial to improve our knowledge of the microphysical processes of precipitation and to improve the accuracy of radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE). In this study, the spatial variability of DSD in different regions [...] Read more.
Understanding the characteristics of the raindrop size distribution (DSD) is crucial to improve our knowledge of the microphysical processes of precipitation and to improve the accuracy of radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE). In this study, the spatial variability of DSD in different regions of Beijing and its influence on radar QPE are analyzed using 11 disdrometers. The DSD data are categorized into three regions: Urban, suburban, and mountainous according to their locations. The DSD exhibits evidently different characteristics in the urban, suburban, and mountain regions of Beijing. The average raindrop diameter is smaller in the urban region compared to the suburban region. The average rain rate and raindrop number concentration are lower in the mountainous region compared to both urban and suburban regions. The difference in DSD between urban and suburban regions is due to the difference in DSD for the same precipitation types, while the difference in DSD between mountain and plains (i.e., urban and suburban regions) is the combined effect of the convection/stratiform ratio and the difference of DSD for the same precipitation types. Three DSD-based polarimetric radar QPE estimators were retrieved and estimated. Among these three QPE estimators, R(ZH), R(Kdp), and R(Kdp, ZDR), R(Kdp, ZDR) performs best, followed by R(Kdp), and R(ZH) performs worst. R(Kdp) is more sensitive to the representative parameters, while R(ZH) and R(Kdp, ZDR) are more sensitive to observational error and systematic bias (i.e., calibration). Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Processing and Application of Weather Radar Data)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Location of Beijing in China and (<b>b</b>) topography of Beijing and locations of the disdrometers used in this study. The thin black lines in (<b>b</b>) denote the 6th Ring Road of Beijing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Scatter density plot for <span class="html-italic">R</span> versus <span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span>, superimposed with the power–law relationship obtained using the least-square fit method and (<b>b</b>) scatter plot for <span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span> versus <span class="html-italic">N<sub>w</sub></span>. Red (blue) dots represent convection (stratiform). The star and square symbols represent the mean values for convection and stratiform, respectively. The black line is the log10(<span class="html-italic">N<sub>w</sub></span>)–<span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span> relationship for stratiform in BR03. Two rectangles indicate the maritime and continental convective clusters in BR03.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Average raindrop spectra for different areas of Beijing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The probability distribution functions (PDF) of (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">D<sub>m</sub></span>, (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">N<sub>t</sub></span>, and (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">R</span> for different areas of Beijing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Scatter density plots of <span class="html-italic">R</span> from all 11 disdrometer observations and R estimated using estimators: (<b>a</b>) R(<span class="html-italic">Z</span><sub>H</sub>), (<b>b</b>) R(<span class="html-italic">K</span><sub>dp</sub>), and (<b>c</b>) R(<span class="html-italic">K</span><sub>dp</sub>, <span class="html-italic">Z</span><sub>DR</sub>). The black line in each panel is the perfect fit line (i.e., y = x). Statistical scores of CC, RMSE, and RMB are superimposed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Scatter density plots of <span class="html-italic">R</span> in the whole region of Beijing from 11 disdrometer observations and <span class="html-italic">R</span> estimated using estimator R(<span class="html-italic">Z</span><sub>H</sub>): (<b>a</b>) Control experiment, (<b>b</b>) DSD variability experiment, (<b>c</b>) measurement error experiment, and (<b>d</b>) systematic bias experiment as described in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03964-t004" class="html-table">Table 4</a>. The black line in each panel is the perfect fit line (i.e., y = x). Statistical scores of CC, RMSE, and RMB are superimposed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Scatter density plots of R in the whole region of Beijing from 11 disdrometer observations and R estimated using estimator R(<span class="html-italic">K</span><sub>dp</sub>): (<b>a</b>) Control experiment, (<b>b</b>) DSD variability experiment, (<b>c</b>) measurement error experiment 1, and (<b>d</b>) measurement error experiment 2 as described in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03964-t005" class="html-table">Table 5</a>. The black line in each panel is the perfect fit line (i.e., y = x). Statistical scores of CC, RMSE, and RMB are superimposed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Scatter density plots of R in the whole region of Beijing from 11 disdrometer observations and R estimated using estimator R(K<sub>dp</sub>,Z<sub>dr</sub>): (<b>a</b>) Control experiment, (<b>b</b>) DSD variability experiment, (<b>c</b>) measurement error experiment, and (<b>d</b>) systematic bias experiment as described in <a href="#remotesensing-15-03964-t006" class="html-table">Table 6</a>. The black line in each panel is the perfect fit line (i.e., y = x). Statistical scores of CC, RMSE, and RMB are superimposed.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 6557 KiB  
Article
Assessments of Use of Blended Radar–Numerical Weather Prediction Product in Short-Range Warning of Intense Rainstorms in Localized Systems (SWIRLS) for Quantitative Precipitation Forecast of Tropical Cyclone Landfall on Vietnam’s Coast
by Mai Khanh Hung, Du Duc Tien, Dang Dinh Quan, Tran Anh Duc, Pham Thi Phuong Dung, Lars R. Hole and Hoang Gia Nam
Atmosphere 2023, 14(8), 1201; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14081201 - 26 Jul 2023
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1844
Abstract
This research presents a blended system implemented by the Vietnam National Center for Hydro-Meteorological Forecasting to enhance the nowcasting and forecasting services of quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPFs) of tropical cyclone (TC) landfalls on Vietnam’s coast. Firstly, the extrapolations of rain/convective systems from multiple [...] Read more.
This research presents a blended system implemented by the Vietnam National Center for Hydro-Meteorological Forecasting to enhance the nowcasting and forecasting services of quantitative precipitation forecasts (QPFs) of tropical cyclone (TC) landfalls on Vietnam’s coast. Firstly, the extrapolations of rain/convective systems from multiple radars in Vietnam in ranges up to 6 h were carried out using Short-Range Warning of Intense Rainstorms in Localized Systems (SWIRLS) developed by the Hong Kong Observatory. Secondly, the forecast from the numerical weather prediction (NWP) system, based on the WRF-ARW model running at 3 km horizontal resolution, was blended with radar-based quantitative precipitation estimates and nowcasts of SWIRLS. The analysis showed that the application of the nowcast system to TC-related cloud forms is complicated, which is related to the TC’s evolution and the different types and multiple layers of storm clouds that can affect the accuracy of the derived motion fields in nowcast systems. With hourly accumulated rainfall observation, skill score validation conducted for several TCs that landed in the center of Vietnam demonstrated that the blending of nowcasting and NWP improve the quality of the QPFs of TCs in forecast ranges up to 3 h compared to the pure NWP forecasts. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Precipitation Observations and Prediction)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The flowchart for generating blended radar–NWP forecasts in this research.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The distribution of AWSs (blue dots) and radar stations used in this research. Red dots and corresponding circles are locations of radar sites and horizontal radar coverages.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Ocean surface satellite winds at the time when the storm ETAU approached to the coast of the south center of Vietnam on 10 November 2020 (source <a href="https://manati.star.nesdis.noaa.gov" target="_blank">https://manati.star.nesdis.noaa.gov</a>, accessed on 15 June 2023).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Reflectivity nowcasting (dBZ) for the tropical cyclone ETAU on 10 November 2020 issued at three different times (the <b>1st row</b> is for 09:00 Local Standard Time (LST), the <b>2nd row</b> is for 09:10 LST, and the <b>3rd row</b> is for 09:20 LST). The <b>1st column</b> is the initial derived motion field, and the <b>2nd</b> and <b>3rd columns</b> are nowcasting for 1 h and 2 h forecast range products, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Maps of 06 h accumulated rainfall (unit: mm): (<b>a</b>) AWS rain from 06Z to 12Z 23 September 2021; (<b>b</b>) AWS rain from 12Z to 18Z 27 September 2022; (<b>c</b>) AWS rain from 12Z to 18Z 14 October 2022; (<b>d</b>) WRF-ARW forecast issued at 06Z 23 September 2021 for TC DIANMU; (<b>e</b>) WRF-ARW forecast issued at 12Z 27 September 2022 for TC NORU; (<b>f</b>) WRF-ARW forecast issued at 12Z 14 October 2022 for TC SONCA.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>ETS charts for three TC cases (<b>1st</b>, <b>2nd,</b> and <b>3rd column</b> are for DIANMU, NORU, and SONCA, respectively) under different thresholds (0.1 mm to 30 mm/1 h, <span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis on each chart) for 1 h (<b>1st row</b>) up to 6 h (<b>6th row</b>) forecast time (FT) of WRF-ARW, SWIRLS, and blended between SWIRLS and WRF-ARW (denoted as NWP_QPF (red), SWIRLS (green), and SWIRLS_NWP (orange), respectively).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Same as <a href="#atmosphere-14-01201-f006" class="html-fig">Figure 6</a> but for POD scores.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Forecast reflectivity (in dBZ) from SWIRLS (<b>left column</b>), NWP forecast from WRF-ARW (<b>middle column</b>), and blended product (<b>right column</b>) for +1 h (<b>first row</b>), +2 h (<b>second row</b>), and +3 h (<b>third row</b>) forecast ranges for TC DIANMU in forecast cycle 00Z 23 September 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Same as <a href="#atmosphere-14-01201-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> but for forecast rainfall (in mm) for TC DIANMU in forecast cycle 00Z 23 September 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Same as <a href="#atmosphere-14-01201-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> but for TC NORU in the forecast cycle 00Z 27 September 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Same as <a href="#atmosphere-14-01201-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a> but for TC SONCA in the forecast cycle 12Z 14 October 2022.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 4993 KiB  
Article
Correction of Fused Rainfall Data Based on Identification and Exclusion of Anomalous Rainfall Station Data
by Qingtai Qiu, Zheng Wang, Jiyang Tian, Yong Tu, Xidong Cui, Chunqi Hu and Yajing Kang
Water 2023, 15(14), 2541; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142541 - 11 Jul 2023
Viewed by 1424
Abstract
High-quality rainfall data are crucial for accurately forecasting flash floods and runoff simulations. However, traditional correction methods often overlook errors in rainfall-monitoring data. We established a screening system to identify anomalous stations using the Hampel method, Grubbs criterion, analysis of surrounding measurement stations, [...] Read more.
High-quality rainfall data are crucial for accurately forecasting flash floods and runoff simulations. However, traditional correction methods often overlook errors in rainfall-monitoring data. We established a screening system to identify anomalous stations using the Hampel method, Grubbs criterion, analysis of surrounding measurement stations, and radar-assisted verification. Three rainfall data-fusion methods were used to fuse rainfall station data with radar quantitative precipitation estimation data; the accuracies of the fused data products with and without anomalous data identification were compared. Validation was performed using four 2012 rainfall events in Hebei Province. The 08:00–19:00 July 3 rainfall event had the highest number of anomalous stations (11.5% of the total), while the 01:00–17:00 August 9 event had the lowest number (7.8%). By comparing stations deemed to be anomalous with stations that were actually anomalous, we determined that the accuracy of reference station determination using Hampel’s method and Grubbs’ test was 94.2%. Radar-assisted validation improved the average accuracy of anomalous station identification during the four typical rainfall events from 89.7 to 93.7%. Excluding anomalous data also significantly impacted the efficacy of rainfall-data fusion, as it improved the quality of the rainfall station data. Among the performance indicators, 95% improved after the exclusion of anomalous data for all four rainfall events. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of rainfall stations in Hebei Province.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Map of Shijiazhuang reference station and distribution of surrounding stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Number and percentage of anomalous stations during four typical rainfall events.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Types of anomalies during the 08:00–19:00 July 3 rainfall event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Validation of anomalous station identification.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Scatter diagrams comparing rainfall station data (1/1 line) to rainfall estimates derived from rainfall-data fusion (scatter points), without the exclusion of anomalous data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Scatter diagrams comparing rainfall station data (1/1 line) to rainfall estimates derived from rainfall-data fusion (scatter points), without the exclusion of anomalous data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Box plots of the data-fusion performance indicators for four rainfall events.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Scatter diagrams comparing rainfall station data (1/1 line) to rainfall estimates derived from rainfall-data fusion (scatter points) after the exclusion of anomalous data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Scatter diagrams comparing rainfall station data (1/1 line) to rainfall estimates derived from rainfall-data fusion (scatter points) after the exclusion of anomalous data.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop