1. The Multisensor Precipitation Estimator and Evaluations over the Florida Peninsula Greg Quina SC DHEC, Bureau of Air Quality Based on graduate research prepared at Florida State University

2. What is the Multisensor Precipitation Estimator (MPE)? Objective merging of rain gauge and bias-corrected radar data via optimal estimation Hourly, 4 km resolution Useful for providing accurate high-resolution rainfall for Flash Flood and River Flood Forecast Guidance Implemented at RFC and some NWS offices Final gridded precipitation estimates have less error than either the input radar or the input gauge data alone

3. Precipitation Sensors Rain Gauges Accurate 8 inch diameter tipping bucket measurement Limitations –High rain rates –Wind and evaporative losses –Electronic/mechanical issues –Clogs –Poor spatial resolution –High maintenance cost for a meso-network

4. Gauge Data (Dense Network) 622 gauges from SJRWMD, SWFWMD, and SFWMD 3 HRL gauges used as verification Hourly-accumulated tipping bucket Quality controlled

5. Gauge-only Products PMOSAIC (Thiessen Polygons) –Closest available gauge GMOSAIC (Gauge-only analysis) –Optimal Estimation

6. Precipitation Sensors WSR-88D Radar Limitations –Obstructions and undesired scatterers –Improper beam filling and overshooting –Evaporative, condensational, and wind effects below radar beam –Brightband and hail contamination –Determining drop size distribution and appropriate Z-R relationship –Truncation errors in the Precipitation Processing System (PPS) –Radar calibration problems –These limitations all add up to a bias that changes from hour to hour and even over the domain of a radar! Good temporal and spatial resolution (6 minute, 1 km range x 1 degree azimuth)

7. Radar Data Hourly Digital Precipitation Data (HDP) produced by PPS at each radar site… now called DPA 4 km resolution 230 km detection range from radar Elevation angle used is based on hybrid scan data

8. Steps in Determining Effective Radar Coverage Area 1Compute radar-derived precipitation climatologies for each radar (seasonal/monthly). 2Define max and min thresholds to place on climatology. Radar estimates are not trusted beyond these thresholds. 3Create maps of effective radar coverage areas. –Minimize defective areas

9. Mosaicking Procedure Which radar to use at each grid cell >Each of the following criteria MUST be satisfied for the chosen radar for each grid cell: 1The radar data MUST be available for the given hour, 2The specified cell location MUST lie within the effective radar coverage area for that radar, AND 3The height of the radar beam at the cell location MUST not exceed ANY other radar beam height that satisfies 1 and 2

10. Height of Lowest Unobstructed Sampling Volume Radar Coverage Map

11. Result: Mosaicked Radar Estimates (RMOSAIC)

12. Radar Bias Correction Correct radar using ground truth data Find non-zero gauge/radar pairs that are within each specific effective radar coverage area A radar bias correction factor is calculated by dividing the total gauge amount by the total radar amount at different time spans Mean field bias for each radar and each hour For additional details, see Seo et al. (1999)

13. Remove Mean Field Bias (BMOSAIC) BMOSAIC(I,J)=BIAS a (k) x RMOSAIC(I,J)

14. MMOSAIC (Final MPE Product) Merge gauge and bias corrected radar observations Weight the nearby gauges vs. radar as a function of a gauges distance from grid point (i,j) –Sum of all weights equal to 1 RMOSAICMMOSAIC

15. Variability within a 4 x 4 km area Much of the difference between the precipitation products and point gauge observations is due to the natural spatial variations of precipitation within the 4 x 4 km cells. We evaluate this spatial variation by making correlograms of hourly gauge data vs. gauge-to-gauge distance: –Six years of hourly gauge data (1996-2001) –79 gauges between 26-27 degrees North and 80-81 degrees West.

16. Hourly Correlograms 2 gauge pairs separated by an inter-gauge distance

17. Statistical Results – 1996 through 1999 METHODrRMSDMADBIASBIAS % PMOSAIC0.3670.2070.0800.0606.027 GMOSAIC0.4190.1790.0760.0505.000 RMOSAIC0.6980.1360.054-0.121-12.061 BMOSAIC 0.734 0.1330.052-0.069-6.888 MMOSAIC0.733 0.1300.051-0.028-2.779 MPE products were verified against 3 HRL gauges All MPE products and gauge values must be valid with at least one product or gauge value recording at least 0.01 precipitation Hourly scatterplots (most rigorous test)… results will look better when looking at daily and monthly data.

18. Seasonal and Precipitation Type Correlations are generally better in stratiform type precipitation and cold season Gauge-only products have poor correlations, especially in convective type and warm season Radar biases are greatest in stratiform/cold season –50% RMOSAIC underestimates in stratiform cases –RMOSAIC truncation errors remain in other radar- influenced products BMOSAIC proved tough to beat in warm season and convective events.

19. September 2001 Hydro Case Study Tropical Storm Gabrielle

20. National Weather Service River Forecast System (NWSRFS) Interactive Forecast Program (IFP) NWSRFS simulates streamflow using the Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting Model (SACSMA) –conceptual model of the land phase of the hydrologic cycle –applied to lumped basin using 6-hour time steps –Sixteen parameters represent basin characteristics such as percentage of impervious areas, vegetation cover, evapotranspiration, and percolation rates NWSRFS is operational at most RFCs, and our configuration resembles that used at SERFC (i.e., same model calibration and unit hydrographs)

21. Two headwaters chosen for this study Geneva basin: large area/slow response Wekiva basin: small area/faster response

22. September 12-16, 2001 Derived Precipitation Theissen SPARSE DENSE RMOSAIC MMOSAIC

23. Geneva MAP and Streamflow

24. Wekiva MAP and Streamflow

25. Check out SERFCs MPE online at http://www.srh.noaa.gov/serfc/qpfvsmap.shtml