Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a t m o s

Precipitation: Measurement, remote sensing, climatology and modeling

S. Michaelides a,⁎, V. Levizzani b, E. Anagnostou c,d, P. Bauer e, T. Kasparis f, J.E. Lane g
a
Meteorological Service, Nicosia, Cyprus
b
Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC-CNR), Bologna, Italy
c
University of Connecticut, Department of Civil and Environmental Eng., Storrs, USA
d
Hellenic Center for Marine Research, Institute of Inland Waters, Anavissos, Greece
e
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK
f
University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA
g
Space Life Sciences Lab, Kennedy Space Center, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This review paper deals with four aspects of precipitation: measurement, remote sensing,
Received 17 May 2009 climatology and modeling. The measurement of precipitation is summarized in terms of the
Received in revised form 26 August 2009 instruments that count and measure drop sizes (defined as disdrometers) and the instruments
Accepted 27 August 2009
that measure an average quantity proportional to the integrated volume of an ensemble of
raindrops (these instruments are normally called rain gauges). Remote sensing of precipitation
Keywords:
is accomplished with ground based radar and from satellite retrievals and these two
Precipitation
Precipitation measurement
approaches are separately discussed. The climatology of precipitation has evolved through
Remote sensing the years from the traditional rain gauge data analyses to the more sophisticated data bases
Climatology that result from a coalescence of data and information on precipitation that is available from
Precipitation modeling several sources into amalgamated products. Recently, rain observations from both ground and
Data assimilation space have been assimilated into regional and global numerical weather prediction models
aiming at improved moisture analysis and better forecasts of extreme weather events. The
current status and the main outstanding issues related to precipitation forecasting are
discussed, providing a basic structure for research coordination aimed at the improvement of
modeling, observation and data assimilation applicable to global and regional scales.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction or droughts due to abundance or scarcity of rainfall,

Precipitation is widely recognized as a fundamental
component of the global water cycle. From a physical point
of view, it is closely related to the atmospheric circulation
through the release of latent heat but it has also an effect on
ocean salinity. Its direct significance to the very survival of
human beings is obvious, as it is the primary source of
drinking water. It has also a direct or indirect economic
dimension, as it is vital to most human activities. The
agricultural sector is probably one of the most sensitive to
precipitation; however, several other sectors of the economy
are largely dependent on fresh water. Extreme events
associated with various forms of precipitation, such as floods
respectively, can have detrimental effects and can be a source
of peril on a regional to global scales. Precipitation can shape
our environment. It contributes to the maintenance of soil
moisture and underground water reservoirs. Meanwhile,
surface runoff, as a result of precipitation, adds to the stream
flow but it can also erode the surface soil and contribute to the
transport of nutrients and contaminants in the coastal zone.
In search for a definition, one is normally confronted with
two broad aspects of precipitation, as a scientific term used in
Meteorology. In this respect, the Glossary of Meteorology
(American Meteorological Society, 2000; also available online
at http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary), for example,
provides the following two comprehensive definitions for
precipitation:

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +357 24802973; fax: +357 24304753. 1. All liquid or solid phase aqueous particles that originate in
E-mail address: silas@ucy.ac.cy (S. Michaelides). the atmosphere and fall to the Earth's surface;

0169-8095/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2009.08.017
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
2. The amount, usually expressed in millimeters or inches of
liquid water depth, of the water substance that has fallen
at a given point over a specified period of time.
The first definition is a rather qualitative description of
precipitation, whereas, the second calls for the deployment of
some kind of precipitation measuring device. Early attempts
at the quantification of precipitation date back to historical
times; Wang and Zhang (1988) provide an account of ancient
records in China and Ramanathan (1987) discusses the
history of rainfall measurements in ancient India. Strange-
ways (2006) provides a treatise on the understanding of
precipitation by the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian and
Hebrew civilizations. However, the first standardized device
is ascribed to a Korean king who invented a rain gauge in
1441 (see Kwun, 2006).
The Earth has an estimated annual precipitation average
of around 1050 mm. However, one major characteristic of
precipitation is its variability both with respect to time and
space. It is revealing that many places routinely receive one
order of magnitude more than the above average (e.g., the
mountains on Kauai in Hawaii receive over 11000 mm). This
inherent variability in precipitation was realized quite early
and formed a central point in numerous studies and research
endeavors.
Through the years, the study of precipitation has been under
continuous review, taking advantage of technological advances,
in an attempt to obtain more accurate measurements, but also
to fill in gaps in our knowledge and understanding of the
processes that shape precipitation and its pathways in the
water cycle. The initial measurements of the parameter by
using simple collecting rain gauges placed at the Earth's surface
were gradually enhanced by more advanced versions of this
kind of collecting instrumentation (e.g., autographic rain
gauges). The collection of data for several years has led to a
significant number of regional and subsequently global
climatological studies in an attempt to reveal the characteristics
of the spatio-temporal variability of precipitation. More
recently, technologically sophisticated devices, placed at either
the Earth's surface (e.g., radars, disdrometers) or aboard space
platforms (e.g., radar, microwave sensors) have widened our
spatial and temporal view of precipitation and have led to a
better understanding of its formation and composition and of
the underlying physical processes. In this respect, remote
sensing of precipitation has played an important role in
complementing and improving our knowledge of both its
spatial and temporal characteristics.
The understanding of the spatio-temporal and physical
characteristics of precipitation through observation and
measurement by exploiting all the available means is of
course of paramount importance. However, the fact that this
key component of the water cycle occurs at such a wide
variety of spatio-temporal scales makes it very challenging to
predict.
The improvement of local, regional and global atmospher-
ic model analyses and forecasts through the improvement of
moist physical parameterization schemes and the assimila-
tion of ground-based and satellite observations related to
atmospheric moisture, clouds, precipitation as well as surface
parameters such as soil moisture is one of the key challenges
in atmospheric modeling and forecasting. Today's forecasting
513
models operate at 15-25 km on global scales and 1-3 km on
regional scales with an unprecedented accuracy of temper-
ature and wind forecasts but still insufficient precipitation
forecasting accuracy. The latter is expected to be greatly
improved by an increase of the use of observational data
constraining forecast model initialization. The emphasis is on
the improvement of short-range forecasting due to the
limited lifetime of moist diabatic processes.
The quality of precipitation observations and the limited
ability of modern data assimilation techniques to capture
highly variable precipitation characteristics are among the
limiting factors for better short-range precipitation forecasts,
particularly in the presence of extreme weather. The main
objectives of current research activities related to this subject
are: (1) The improvement of the assimilation of surface, cloud
and precipitation variables in high-resolution Numerical
Weather Prediction (NWP) models with 1-3 km horizontal
resolution for nowcasting, very short-range and short-range
forecasting purposes; (2) the improvement of the assimila-
tion of surface, cloud and precipitation related variables in
global NWP models with moderate horizontal resolution for
short and medium-range forecasting purposes; (3) the
improvement of precipitation input to high resolution
hydrological models at 2-3 km horizontal resolution to be
applied for flood forecasting and environmental manage-
ment; (4) the development of systems for regional re-
analysis at 2-3 km horizontal resolution.
In global NWP systems, satellite observations provide 90-
95% of the actively assimilated data. This data represents only
a small portion of the available satellite observations since
about 75% are discarded due to cloud contamination and
unknown land, snow and sea-ice surface emissivity. Cloud-
affected data is poorly treated in most systems because of the
limited accuracy of moist physics parameterizations in
numerical models and the less accurate modeling of radiative
transfer through clouds and precipitation that is required in
data assimilation.
Precipitation modeling is fairly accurate for large-scale
organized synoptic systems but modeling skill quickly
decreases for more localized events that are not governed
by the large-scale flow and, in the case of global models,
whose spatial and temporal features can not be explicitly
resolved. Even cloud-resolving models (CRM) suffer from
poor precipitation modeling because many processes that are
involved in, e.g., ice nucleation, warm cloud or orographic
precipitation formation are not well known, and most CRMs
have been developed aiming at accurate representations of
dynamics rather than microphysics.
Modern data assimilation systems such as 4D-Var and
ensemble methods are geared towards clear-sky data because
modeling of both dry processes and their error characteristics
is better understood so that small-scale processes are mostly
left to the forecast model itself with little direct constraint of
the initial fields with observational data.
The biggest progress can therefore be expected from
parallel and coordinated developments for observation
handling, moist process modeling and data assimilation.
These can only to a certain extent be afforded by individual
institutions and therefore require strong collaboration be-
tween different science communities. This has already been
stressed by Errico et al. (2007a), noting that the NWP
514 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
community is rather advanced in addressing most of the tasks
as a concerted effort.
The aim of this review paper is to provide a brief but
comprehensive discussion on the measurement, remote
sensing, climatology and modeling of precipitation. In the
following sections, these four aspects are presented in an
effort to illustrate how these techniques and methods, as well
as other related ones, can be exploited to properly charac-
terize the spatial and temporal scale of precipitation and
establish some limits on measurement accuracy.
2. Measurement
Instruments that detect and quantify rainfall at the surface
measure different properties of rain than those instruments
that measure rainfall well above the ground. Weather radar
and satellites take a snapshot of the drop size distribution
above the surface in some spatial measurement volume,
defined by the characteristics of the instrument. Rain gauges
on the ground attempt to quantify the flux of the drop size
distribution using direct measurements. In many cases, the
two types of measurements may not be well correlated, even
though given a sufficiently long temporal and spatial average;
a predictable relationship can usually be established.
A radar snapshot can only measure the sum of the squares
of the volume of all hydrometeors within the measurement
volume. Radar cannot directly determine the vertical flux of
hydrometeors, speed or direction. Radar will give the same
measurement for an ensemble of drops that are travelling
upward as those that are falling towards the ground. This
situation can and does occur during conditions of strong
updrafts where the updraft velocity exceeds drop terminal
velocities due to gravity.
Total rainfall volume must be estimated based on a single
site measurement of hydrometeor flux associated with a
point measurement, since a gauge on the surface covers only
a very small portion of the ground receiving rainfall. Several
rain gauges grouped together can be expected to measure a
similar rainfall flux, depending on the distance between
measuring sites. Gauges that are within a few meters of each
other are expected to measure equivalent rainfall accumula-
tion, drop size distribution, and rainfall rate. As the distance
increases to hundreds of meters, the correlation between
gauge sites diminishes.
Instruments that quantify rainfall (i.e., the flux of the drop
size distribution at the surface) measure different properties
of the flux, depending on the type of instrument. Even though
there may be many ways to categorize surface rainfall
measurement instruments, it turns out that there are only a
few different types. It is therefore convenient to adopt two
general categories of surface measuring instruments: (1)
instruments that count and measure individual drops, and (2)
those that don't.
Instruments that count and measure drop sizes are
defined as disdrometers. Instruments that don't count drops
measure an average quantity proportional to the integrated
volume of an ensemble of raindrops; these instruments are
normally called rain gauges. An optical rain gauge has
properties of both of these types since it deduces rainfall
amounts based on the attenuation of a light beam. However,
an optical rain gauge is typically designed to output a
measure of rainfall rate; therefore it should be categorized
as a rain gauge and not a disdrometer.
2.1. Disdrometers
There are two main classes of disdrometers: the impact
disdrometer and the imaging (line or area scan) disdrometer.
In all cases, rainfall rate and rain accumulation are computed
from the summation of drops counted and sized over the
sensing area per unit time.
2.1.1. Impact Disdrometer
By far the most common type of disdrometer is the
impact disdrometer, the best known of which is the Joss-
Waldvogel disdrometer, designed and manufactured by
Distromet, Ltd., Switzerland (Joss and Waldvogel, 1967; see
also http://www.distromet.com/). All impact disdrometers
utilize a sensing head that converts the mechanical energy
of a hydrometeor impact to an equivalent electrical pulse.
The details of the conversion are highly dependent on the
details of the sensor and transducer design. In all designs a
requirement is to find a best trade-off of sensor head size
to minimize coincidence of overlapping drop impacts with
the ability to sample the larger drop size end of the size
distribution. The first condition drives the design to the
smallest sensor size, whereas the second requirement
drives the design to the largest size. Impact coincidence
is directly related to the pulse width τ of the impact. The
pulse width τ is the convolution of the physical collision
process with the mechanical system response, and with the
sensor electrical impulse response. The final electrical pulse
width is always wider than the collision interaction time.
In order to minimize the possibility of overlap, in which
case, the drops are either not counted (locked out) or
incorrectly counted, the number of drops hitting the sensor
per second should always be << 1/τ. The size of the sensor
head directly determines the number of impacts per
second: the sensor area, multiplied by the integral of the
product of the drop size distribution and drop terminal
velocity over all drop sizes. The Joss disdrometer for
example, uses a head with sampling area A = 50 cm2 in
order to optimize the counting and sizing of drops.
In addition to the pulse width issue, all impact disdrom-
eters share other common instrumentation challenges.
Calibration is at the top of the list. Impact disdrometers
measure something related to momentum and energy of
the hydrometeor collision with the sensing head. Theoret-
ical approaches to calculating the calibration from signal
response to drop size are useful and informative, but in
the end, some type of calibration procedure is inevitably
necessary. The effect of noise is the next problem on the
list of design challenges. Noise can originate from many
environmental sources. Thunder as well as the electro-
magnetic pulse generated by lightning, can interfere with
the disdrometer operation. Heavy rain is another problem
since the impacts from small drops may easily be masked
by the impact associated with large drop sizes. Terminal
velocity at the surface is usually not overly affected by
updraft or downdraft air motion since the vertical velocity
component of air must be zero at the surface. However,
larger drops require a greater height to obtain terminal
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
velocity. At these heights above the surface, a significant
vertical air motion component may be present, which then
upsets the terminal velocity assumption for these drop
sizes.
Horizontal winds are very problematic for all types of
surface gauges. In the ideal theoretical limit, horizontal
motion should not affect the flux of rain drops measured
on a horizontal surface since the dot product of the
horizontal motion with the vertical flux vector is zero.
However, the cancellation of the horizontal component
does not occur in the physical case of drops which have a
finite collision time with the sensor. In the real case, the
hydrometeor shears across the surface of the sensor, which
may have unpredictable effects on the measurement.
Water is encouraged to flow away from the sensor using
shallow angles or curvature of the head. However, in the
case of drop trajectories which have a strong horizontal
component, the sensor head curvature may mask the
downwind section of the sensor from direct hydrometeor
impact, resulting in measurement errors.
The impact disdrometer ability to accurately measure a
drop size distribution is severely limited by the physics of the
impact process and the conversion of mechanical vibration to
an electrical signal. The future of impact disdrometers is likely
to be in the area of improved signal processing, along with
better physical models of the impact transducer.
2.1.2. Image Scan Disdrometer
A digital camera, using a two-dimensional sensing array,
can image drops providing size, shape, and velocity informa-
tion of all drops passing through the camera's field of view. A
line scan array can also be employed. Most problems
associated with impact disdrometers are not issues with the
image scan disdrometers. However, these types of disdrom-
eters have a whole new set of problems to deal with.
The image scan disdrometers, which may also be
referred to as video disdrometers, generally must use a
small aperture, typically in the shape of a slot, so that a
finite number of drops can be imaged within the camera's
field of view and depth of focus. The area of the opening is
not necessarily smaller than the sensing head of an impact
disdrometer, but the fact that it is a hole, and possibly a
slotted hole, as opposed to a sensing round “pole” in the
impact disdrometer case, leads to questions of air flow
around the entrance slot and how that air flow may disrupt
the measured velocity, as well as shape of drops entering
the aperture. Using two or more cameras, a 3-D video
disdrometer can be implemented, so that with triangula-
tion algorithms, a full volume scan of hydrometeors can in
theory be accomplished (Kruger and Krajewski, 2001).
Video disdrometers provide a wealth of information,
but at a significantly increased cost. As digital camera
technology advances and price decreases, the cost of a video
disdrometer may approach that of an impact disdrometer.
However, the same factors that may drive the cost of video
disdrometer down, will also affect the impact disdrometer
so that for the near future, both types of disdrometers will
serve different requirements and both will continue to
provide the meteorological community with valuable data
(Tokay et al., 2001; Sheppard and Joe, 1994; Grossklaus et al.,
1998).
515
2.2. Rain gauges
All rain gauges measure an incremental mass of accumu-
lated rainfall as a function of time. This incremental mass of
rain may be measured by weight or volume or by attenuation
of a laser over some distance. The increment may be as small
as 0.1 mm in a tipping bucket rain gauge, or it may be the
entire accumulation of the rainfall event.
2.2.1. Accumulation Gauge
A simple cylinder can accumulate rainfall and a direct
measurement of the height of the water level in the cylinder
after a rainfall event is a direct measure of the rainfall
accumulation at that point on the ground. The measured
rainfall accumulation is independent of the shape of the
collector. However, there are several factors that can affect
the measurement of rainfall accumulation. Since rainfall is
made up of a finite number of spatially and temporally
distributed drops over some characteristic size range, the
accumulation of rainfall at a point is totally dependent on the
sum of the drop volumes that accumulate in the collector.
Short rainfall events, characteristic of summer thunder-
storms, may last only a few minutes. The range of drop
sizes may be very large and weighted towards the larger size.
The rainfall measured by a pair of side by side cylinders will
not necessarily perfectly agree, simply because of the
statistics of the discrete nature of the accumulation summa-
tion. Wind effects which may also be very spatially dependent
can lead to differences in side by side accumulation gauge
measurements. The correlation of collocated accumulation
rain gauges should set the error limit in comparing rain
gauges and disdrometers for the specific environmental
parameters associated with the measurement site.
2.2.2. Tipping Bucket
A tipping bucket gauge accumulates a fixed volume of
water in a small bucket, typically corresponding to 0.01 inch
or 0.1 mm of rainfall, depending on the bucket size. Once the
bucket is filled, a cantilever mechanism causes the bucket to
dump the accumulated water and start the filling process
again. When the water is dumped, a time tag is recorded by a
switch. The result is a record of times that rainfall equal to the
bucket volume is accumulated. The rainfall rate is simply the
constant bucket volume divided by the time between tips,
multiplied by the gauge collector opening area, usually an
8 inch (20 mm) diameter collector.
Even though the tipping bucket is a relatively simple
device, there are many sources of possible error. Most tipping
bucket rain gauges use two buckets that alternately fill and
dump. Any asymmetry in the mechanical action of the two
buckets leads to some errors. The time it takes to dump the
bucket and start the filling process again can lead to errors,
especially during high rainfall rates. High rainfall rates lead to
rapid filling and dumping, which can lead to loss of water
during the accumulation process. Another common problem
with tipping bucket gauges, especially those that may be
unattended for long periods of time, are clogging and
jamming of the mechanism due to insects, frogs, or just
about anything that can find its way into the mechanism.
Another source of error is clock drift. Most tipping buckets
record the tip time on a local clock which is part of an internal
516 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
data logger. The data logger data is periodically downloaded
to a central site for distribution to the general user. The
typical drift of most data logger clocks is on the order of one
minute per month. Tipping bucket data that is used to
compare rainfall rate measurements with other gauge types
and/or radar must normally be synchronized to better than a
minute to absolute time.
Most of the errors discussed above can be minimized by
careful and diligent calibration and maintenance (La Barbera
et al., 2002; Nystuen, 1999; Sevruk, 1996; Upton and Rahimi,
2003). However, it must be recognized that tipping bucket
data typically is acquired by instruments that are left
unattended for long periods of time.
2.2.3. Weighing Rain Gauge
A weighing-type precipitation gauge consists of a storage
bin, which is weighed using various methods to record the
mass of water. The advantages of this type of gauge over
tipping buckets are that it does not underestimate high rain
rates, and it can measure other forms of precipitation such as
hail and snow. These gauges are generally more expensive
and require more maintenance than tipping bucket gauges.
2.2.4. Optical Rain Gauge
An optical rain gauge is very similar to an image scan
disdrometer that is composed of a single pixel. The area of
measurement is the length of the distance between the light
beam source (usually an infrared laser) and the detector,
multiplied by the diameter of the detector. By measuring the
intensity or attenuation of the signal to the presence of rain as a
function of time, rainfall rate information can be deduced. The
optical rain gauge can be placed in the mechanical rain gauge
category, since it outputs a rainfall rate. Alternatively, it can be
placed in the disdrometer category as the end of the progression
of 3-D volume scan using multiple cameras, 2-D area scan using a
single camera, a 1-D line scan, as the 0-D scan of a single pixel.
2.3. Relative merits
All rain gauge types may suffer from common problems
that are primarily environmentally related, such as wind,
evaporation, environmental noise, and the spatial and
temporal variation of the drop size distribution. Some gauge
types are less sensitive to some problems than others. Each
type has benefits and disadvantages.
2.3.1. Accumulation gauge
Ignoring the inherent spatial variation of the drop size
distribution, accumulation rain gauges measure the absolute
integration of rainfall rate and therefore provide a measure-
ment of an indisputable physical quantity. Several accumu-
lation gauges clustered together can provide an improved
average measurement, as well as the standard deviation. A
common problem that may affect an accumulation gauge
measurement is evaporation. This can be minimized if the
data is collected immediately following a rainfall event. If the
gauge is filled too near the top, water may splash out of the
gauge, reducing the accuracy of the measurement. Most
accumulation gauges must be manually read. Also, if data is
needed for real-time forecasts and warnings, an accumulation
measurement after the event may not be particularly useful.
2.3.2. Tipping Bucket
Tipping buckets measure rainfall rate via a quantized discrete
estimate of the derivative of rainfall accumulation with time. This
approach to rainfall measurement has several potential pro-
blems, including clock synchronization and mechanical accuracy
of the bucket filling and dumping. Another common problem
with tipping buckets is due to differences in the numerical
algorithms used to process the raw data. Often smoothing
functions are used to generate interpolated estimates between
tips. Generic smoothing functions are not guaranteed to produce
positive values; as a result, many commonly employed tipping
bucket processing algorithms may lead to small negative values
between tips. The sum of tips may not necessarily equal a
collocated accumulation gauge measurement.
2.3.3. Disdrometer
Even though a disdrometer acquires more detailed infor-
mation on rainfall than any other instrument, including radar, it
will not necessarily provide the best estimate of rainfall rate. A
disdrometer, like a tipping bucket, is dependent on an internal
clock which may drift with time. It is important to keep the
calibration of the disdrometer and its clock as current as
reasonably possible. The greatest value of a disdrometer is its
estimate of the drop size distribution with time. In the case of an
impact disdrometer, the terminal velocity of drops must be
assumed. In the case of image scan disdrometers, hydrometeor
velocity may be determined independently along with size and
shape. A disdrometer can measure rainfall rates down to a
much smaller precision than tipping buckets.
Each gauge type has its pros and cons. In the end, the
utilization of all types of rain gauges in a collocated
arrangement is by far the best strategy for rainfall measure-
ment and analysis. Another strategy to improve rainfall
measurements is to utilize a network of gauges deployed
over an area with separations of no more than one to two
kilometers (Lane et al., 1999). This method is particularly
useful when the goal is to compare ground based measure-
ments with radar measurements above the gauge network.
2.4. Snow measurement
Because there are several physical quantities of snow that
are found by separate and independent measurements,
considerably more effort is involved in measuring snowfall,
as compared to rainfall measurements. The Community
Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow Network (CoCoRaHS)
based at Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO, publishes a
guidebook [available at http://www.cocorahs.org/media/
docs/Measuring Snow-National-Training 1.1.pdf] for its
volunteers describing in detail how to measure four impor-
tant quantities associated with snowfall:
• The depth of new snow (new snowfall).
• Liquid water equivalent of new snow.
• The total depth of new snow and old snow and ice at
observation time.
• Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) of total snow on the ground.
Snow measurements are plagued by wind effects, such as
snow pileup on the leeward side of the gauge, resulting in
snow undercatch problems. Barring the use of Alter shields,
wind-induced undercatch in snow can be as much as an order
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
of magnitude greater than with rain (see Alter, 1937). Snow
poses a special problem for tipping-bucket gauges: if they are
not heated, the snow will stick to the bucket when it tips; but
heating induces thermals that may exacerbate the undercatch
problem. Elaborate fence structures such as the Wyoming
snow fence (Yang et al., 2000) have been proven to be
effective at minimizing the effects of wind-induced gauge
undercatch. Drifting snow is another potential source of error,
which can be mitigated by mounting the gauge on poles three
to six meters above the surface (Lundberg and Halldin, 2001).
Accumulation of snow on the rim of a rain/snow gauge's
collector is another problem, resulting in an underestimate of
snowfall. The pileup of snow on the rim may, in severe cases,
completely bridge the collector opening, therefore clogging
the gauge. Melting of the snow at a later time will then be
recorded as a false occurrence of precipitation.
There are numerous automated methods of point snow
measurement based on the electrical dielectric properties of
snow and ice, such as time-domain-reflectometry (TDR), as
well as ground based radar. Isotopic snow gauges measure
the attenuation of neutrons from a radioactive source or from
cosmic ray produced neutrons (Lundberg and Halldin, 2001).
As with any ground point measurement, automated methods
eventually need inspection and maintenance. In the case of
snow measurements, the time between required inspections
is much shorter than for rainfall gauges.
Several remote sensing methods are used operationally to
measure area averaged properties of snow, such as snowmelt
density, snow areal extent and SWE (Lundberg and Halldin,
2001).
3. Remote sensing
3.1. Ground Radar
Improving hydrologic predictability requires accurate
quantitative rainfall measurements at small temporal (min-
utes) and spatial (hundred of meters to few kilometers)
scales. Arguably, weather radar's capability to monitor
precipitation at high spatio-temporal scales has stimulated
interest within the hydro-meteorological community. The
study of the hydrological cycle at regional to global scale
requires large scale observations such as those provided by
satellite sensors. However, there are open questions on the
accuracy of precipitation retrievals from satellites where
ground validation on the basis of weather radar and other in
situ measurements is needed to characterize retrieval
uncertainty (Chandrasekar et al., 2008).
The standard radar measurement in rainfall estimation is
the horizontal polarization reflectivity (ZH in dBZ) typically
derived from low frequency (S-band or C-band)/high-power
weather radar systems. However, the coefficients of the
power law relationship needed to convert reflectivity to
rainfall rate do not carry enough information to characterize
the microphysical variability associated with meteorological
systems ranging from cold frontal systems to summer
thunderstorms and tropical systems - to name a few (e.g.,
Smith et al., 1996; Anagnostou et al., 1999; Krajewski et al.,
2006). These limitations arise from uncertainties associated
with the lack of uniqueness in reflectivity to rainfall intensity
transformation, radar system calibration and contamination by
517
ground returns, as well as related to precipitation profile and
complex terrain effects such as beam overshoot and range
effects, beam blockage, anomalous propagation, and bright-
banding (Kitchen and Jackson, 1993; Hunter, 1996; Smith et al.,
1996; Young et al., 1999, 2000). Recent considerations concern
the upgrade of those single polarization systems to include
dual-polarization capability which is expected to moderate the
effect of Z-R variability and radar calibration (Ryzhkov et al.,
2005; Bringi et al., 2004; Zrnic and Ryzhkov, 1999), while
deploying low-power local radar units is an option to fill in
critical gaps in operational radar networks and moderate issues
related to beam overshoot and range effects, beam blockage
and bright-banding. Use of cost effective, X-band radar units for
this purpose is particularly stressed in cases of regions prone to
localized severe weather phenomena, like tornados and flash
floods, and over mountainous basins not well covered (due to
terrain blockage) by operational weather radar networks
(Chandrasekar et al., 2004).
Advances in weather radar technology have led to the
development of polarimetric radar systems that are becoming
more suitable for hydrological and hydro-meteorological appli-
cations. First, Seliga and Bringi (1976, 1978) used the anisotropy
information arising from the oblateness of raindrops to estimate
rainfall. This information was exploited by producing new
parameters such as the differential reflectivity (ZDR) and the
differential propagation phase shift (ΦDP). The ΦDP is a powerful
tool for the quantification of rain-path attenuation in short
wavelength radar observations (Anagnostou et al., 2006a; Park
et al., 2005; Matrosov et al., 2005) and for estimating of
precipitation parameters including hydrometeor size distribu-
tions (Brandes et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2001; Vivekanandan
et al., 2004; Gorgucci et al., 2000). Due to the rain-path
attenuation that shorter wavelengths (X- and C-band) undergo
makes longer wavelengths (S-band) more attractive in the
quantification of rainfall. Note that even at C-band significant
attenuation can occur in major convective storms that would
moderate the use of such systems in rainfall estimation.
Dual polarization radar rainfall relationships are based on
measurements of horizontal polarization reflectivity, ZH,
differential reflectivity, ZDR, and the specific propagation
differential phase shift KDP parameters. Assuming an equilib-
rium raindrop shape-size relation a number of rainfall
algorithms have been derived at S-band and C-band radar
frequency on the basis of disdrometer derived raindrop
spectra (Seliga and Bringi, 1976, 1978; Sachidananda and
Zrnic, 1987; Chandrasekar et al., 1990; Gorgucci et al., 1994,
2001; Ryzhkov and Zrnic, 1995; Gorgucci and Scarchilli, 1997;
Bringi and Chandrasekar, 2001; Brandes et al., 2001, 2002,
2004; Ryzhkov et al., 2005). The most common rain rate
estimators are presented below:
b −cZDR
RðZH ; ZDR Þ = aZH 10 ð1Þ
β
RðKDP Þ = αKDP ð2Þ
b −0:1c1 ZDR
RðKDP ; ZDR Þ = a1 KDP1 10 ð3Þ
b c d
RðZH ; ZDR ; KDP Þ = a1 ZH1 ZDR
1
KDP1 ð4Þ
where ZH is in mm6m3, KDP in deg/km and ZDR in dB. Estimates
of the coefficients of the above relations are obtained through
518 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
power-law fitting of actual radar and gauge measurements
and simulated radar/rainfall parameters from disdrometer
observations or drop size distribution (DSD) datasets gener-
ated through numerical simulations based on theoretically
derived DSD parameters (e.g., Testud et al., 2000; Bringi and
Chandrasekar, 2001). Although fixed power-law relations
that include polarimetric observations (e.g., ZDR) show some
improvement over the standard ZH-R estimator, they cannot
capture the complete variability of DSD. An alternative
method, first proposed by Seliga and Bringi (1976), is to
retrieve the DSD parameters directly from the polarimetric
radar measurements and then derive rain rates from those
parameters.
Two approaches of retrieving a three-parameter gamma
type DSD model from dual-polarization measurements have
been reported by Gorgucci et al. (2001) and Zhang et al.
(2001) for application at S-band frequency. With the
approach of Gorgucci et al. (2001; see also Bringi et al.,
2002) the slope of the drop axis ratio relation (β) is treated as
a variable to be determined from radar measurements.
Gorgucci et al. (2001) hypothesize that rain estimates with
the ‘‘β-method’’ are immune to variability in the raindrop
size–shape relation. The other approach, the ‘‘constrained-
gamma’’ method (Zhang et al., 2001; Brandes et al., 2003,
2004), uses radar reflectivity at horizontal polarization (ZH),
differential reflectivity (ZDR) and a constraining relation
between the DSD shape (μ unitless) and slope (Λ in mm- 1)
parameters to retrieve the three parameters of the gamma
DSD. Once DSD is known, other parameters, such as rain rate,
can be readily calculated.
Using the above DSD estimation approach (β-method),
the rain rate given by Bringi et al. (2002) is as follows:
b c dβe
R = aβ ZH ξDR ð5Þ
where the β (mm- 1) is a function of ZH in mm6m3, ξDR =10Zdr/10
is in linear units and the KDP is in degrees/km. For a constrained-
gamma DSD approach, the ratio R/ZH is independent of the
intercept parameter N0 of a gamma DSD, and can be expressed
solely in terms of Λ (or μ). Thus, this ratio is a function only of ZDR
because for the constrained relation and for a fixed shape-size
relation ZDR uniquely determines the DSD shape parameter μ.
Brandes et al. (2004) estimates rain rate as follows:
2
bZDR + cZDR
R = aZH 10 ð6Þ
Testud et al. (2000) proposed to normalize the classic R-Z
and the polarimetric R-(ZH, Z DR, K DP) algorithms with the
intercepted parameter N W of a gamma DSD to incor-
porate the DSD information in the retrieval. Finally,
Nakakita et al. (2008) introduced a new polarimetric al-
gorithm R-(ZH, K DP, D m) for C-band introducing DSD in-
formation through the mass-weighted mean diameter D m
in the relationships of R-(Z H, D m) and R-(K DP, D m). Fur-
thermore, D m is used in the selection of the most appro-
priate R-(ZH, D m) or R-(K DP, D m) relation.
The above algorithms have been developed and tested
for low frequency (S-band or C-band) radar observations.
As mentioned earlier in this section, the use of low-power/
high-frequency (i.e. X-band) radar systems has gained a
greater interest in recent years due to the increased spatial
resolution achieved from deploying a network of such radars
(Chandrasekar et al., 2004) and the increased sensitivity
to low rainfall intensities (Matrosov et al., 2002, 2005;
Anagnostou et al., 2004). Advancements in dual-polarization
technology have brought in consequential advancements in
precipitation estimation and attenuation correction from
those systems (Bringi and Chandrasekar, 2001). Several
results show a successful use of X-band measurements of
rainfall. One of the major issues that X-band radar systems
need to account for is the problem of rain-path attenuation.
Several attenuation correction methods have been developed
that utilize differential propagation phase ΦDP to derive
stable rain-path attenuation estimates at X-band (Testud
et al., 2000; Gorgucci et al., 2006; Vulpiani et al., 2005;
Matrosov et al., 2005; Park et al., 2005; Anagnostou et al.,
2006b). When rain is mixed with wet ice the differential-
phase shift based method will be in error because wet ice
(snow/graupel/hail) contributes very little to the ΦDP signal
(being nearly isotropic) whereas it does contribute signifi-
cantly to the radar reflectivity. While the attenuation due to
the rain component of the mixture can be calculated using
ΦDP, the attenuation due to wet ice component is very
difficult to estimate because of the large variability in the size
distribution and water coat thickness that gives rise to a large
family of k-Z relations (k is the specific attenuation, Z is the
intrinsic radar reflectivity). Recently, a technique was
developed to separately estimate the X-band specific atten-
uation due to rain and wet ice along the path of X-band dual-
polarization radar (León et al., 2007). Furthermore, a
hydrometeor classification technique, recently extended to
X-band frequency by Marzano et al. (2007), could be used in a
variational framework with attenuation correction relations
to achieve mixed phase (rain, graupel, hail, snow, etc.) ray
path attenuation correction and estimation of water content.
Similarly to the S-band/C-band frequency, several
techniques have been developed to estimate the governing
Gamma DSD model parameters in rainfall from X-band dual
polarization radar measurements (Matrosov et al., 2005;
Brandes et al., 2004; Anagnostou et al., 2007, 2008a,b). The
method by Gorgucci et al. (2001) discussed above was
extended for X-band by Anagnostou et al. (2007, 2008a).
Park et al. (2005) adapted a similar method for use at the
X-band frequency to estimate median drop diameter and
the ‘intercept’ parameter of the Gamma DSD. Other recent
studies have proposed estimation of one of the DSD parameters
as part of attenuation correction and/or rain estimation.
Matrosov et al. (2005) estimated median drop diameter by
relating it with the attenuation-corrected ZDR at X-band, while
the technique developed by Testud et al. (2000) provides
estimates of the intercept parameter for C-/X-band frequencies
using an attenuation correction algorithm that designates the
ΦDP as an external constraint to the attenuation estimation
method. Finally, there are nonparametric estimation algo-
rithms presented by Moisseev et al. (2006) and Moisseev and
Chandrasekar (2007). Anagnostou et al. (2008b) presented a
non-parametric approach for estimating the three governing
parameters of DSD from X-band dual polarized radar para-
meters using a regularized artificial Neural Network (NN).
Overall, we note that the use of X-band weather radar
systems have advanced to the level that can have direct
implications to meteorological and hydrological forecasting.
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
This is due to advancements in dual-polarization tech-
niques, which dramatically improved the rainfall estimation
from X-band observations through minimizing the uncer-
tainty in attenuation correction and through enhancing the
sampling resolutions and sensitivity to rainfall. These are
generally low power short range (<60 km) systems and
primarily suitable for hydro-meteorological applications,
specialized field experiments and as ‘gap’-filler radars for
operational high-power/longer-wavelength radar networks.
3.2. Satellite
Rainfall intensity retrievals from space-borne sensors have
been based mostly on passive sensors for about 30 years using
visible (VIS), infrared (IR) and passive microwave (PMW)
wavelengths on geostationary (GEO) and low Earth orbiting
(LEO) satellites. Since the launch of the Tropical Rainfall
Measuring Mission (TRMM; Kummerow et al., 1998) in 1997
the first precipitation radar is operating in space. The
availability of active precipitation detection from space has
laid the groundwork for spaceborne estimations from radar and
radar+ radiometer. Levizzani et al. (2007) provide a general
overview of algorithms, sensors and techniques used in rainfall
retrievals from space.
Microwave frequencies are more directly responsive to
cloud internal processes and thus to precipitation formation
mechanisms because in this portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum the precipitating hydrometeors are the main source
of the attenuation. Over the ocean the signal comes essentially
from the increased amount of emitted radiation from raindrops
that makes the rain areas somewhat “warmer” that the
surrounding “colder” ocean background. Over land, rainfall is
detected using the reduction of the upwelling radiation due to
scattering mainly related to precipitating ice particles. Note that
in both cases the radiation measured by the sensor is an
integrated quantity over the whole atmospheric column and
not just from the precipitation layer close to the ground; effects
of surface emission and reflection as well as absorption by
atmospheric gases (water vapour above all) are thus included.
The relatively low and more or less constant water surface
emissivity makes the PMW retrieval methods work more
effectively over the ocean over a wide range of surface water
temperatures. The same is not true over land areas where the
emissivities of soils and vegetation are much higher than those
of water and very variable from place to place. This makes the
retrieval much more problematic over land where most
methods show evident problems. The resolution of the
measurement is another important limitation being around
50× 50 km2 over ocean and no better than 10× 10 km2 over
land. Many methods assume that the rainfall field is homoge-
neous across the instrument's field of view (FOV), thus
disregarding the three dimensional structure of the rain system.
This assumption, together with the nonlinear response of
brightness temperatures to rain rates, leads to the well known
problem of beam filling (e.g., Kummerow, 1998).
Low-frequency microwave measurements (below 40 GHz)
over the oceans thus have the capability of detecting liquid
hydrometeors and they can be combined with the sensitivity of
higher frequencies (above 60 GHz) over land to precipitation-
size ice. However, the channels are not independent from each
other and there are more independent variables in the rain
519
clouds than there are channels in the radiometer suite. While
the emission-scattering channel combination has a clear
potential for retrieving the vertical structure of precipitation
systems, this is also a classic ill-posed problem with multiple
solutions (Twomey, 1977). In other words, the same rainfall
structure can be retrieved for a wide combination of channel
observations for quite different cloud structures.
Physically based PMW retrieval strategies were based on
the early work of Smith et al. (1992) and Mugnai et al. (1993)
who laid the foundations of statistical-physical algorithms for
rain retrieval using PMW data and cloud modeling. The most
widely known of this class of algorithms is the Goddard
Profiling (GPROF) technique (Kummerow et al., 2001) whose
improvements for the TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI) are
the basis for TRMM 2A12 rainfall product. GPROF retrieves
the instantaneous rainfall and the rainfall vertical structure
using the response functions for different channels peaking at
different depths within the rain column. The algorithm is
based upon a Bayesian approach that begins by establishing a
large database of potential hydrometeor profiles and their
computed brightness temperatures (Tb). This database is
computed from cloud resolving models (CRM) such as the
Goddard Cumulus Ensemble model. Once the database is
established, the retrieval searches the database and in Bayes's
formulation, the probability of a particular profile R, given Tb,
can be written as:
PrðR jTbÞ = PrðRÞ × PrðTb jRÞ ð7Þ
where Pr(R) is the probability with which a certain profile R
will be observed and Pr(Tb | R) is the probability of observing
the BT vector, Tb, given a particular rain profile R. The first
term on the right hand side of (7) is derived using the CRM
and assumes that the statistics produced by the CRM
represent the natural variability of cloud states. This assump-
tion can be improved by using observations for determining a
more realistic database (Bauer, 2001).
Note that, however, most of the available PMW rainfall
retrieval algorithms were optimized for a particular satellite
sensor and were trained with different databases. Inter-
comparisons have shown that each algorithm has its own
strengths and weaknesses related to the specific application it
was designed for. Kummerow et al. (2007) have addressed
the need for a transparent, parametric algorithm for ensuring
uniform rainfall products across all available sensors. This is
especially needed in view of the Global Precipitation
Measurement (GPM) mission (Hou et al., 2008).
The GPM is an international mission that aims to unify and
advance global precipitation measurements from a constel-
lation of research and operational PMW sensors. The primary
goal of the mission is to provide global, uniformly calibrated
precipitation observations every 2-4 h. It will deploy a core
spacecraft carrying the first Ku/Ka-band Dual-frequency
Precipitation Radar (DPR) and a multi-channel GPM Micro-
wave Imager (GMI) with high-frequency capabilities. The
GMI is designed to serve as a reference standard for the
constellation radiometers by means of an advanced calibra-
tion system while the DPR will provide microphysical
measurements such as particle size distribution and vertical
structure of precipitating cloud systems. This will be used in
conjunction with cloud-resolving models for the creation of a
520 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
common cloud-radiation database for precipitation retrievals
from both the GMI and the constellation radiometers. The
constellation members will be represented by existing or
future satellites of opportunity such as those of the US
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP), the
EUMETSAT Polar System (EPS), the Japanese Global Change
Observation Mission (GCOM), the French-Indian tropical
mission Megha-Tropiques and several other that are current-
ly being planned.
Recent research on PMW sensor technology has brought
about new developments in the direction of exploiting higher
frequencies channels of conically scanning radiometers (e.g.,
the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder, SSMIS) and
cross-track PMW scanners like the Advanced Microwave
Sounding Unit-B (AMSU-B) launched onboard the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites
until NOAA-17 and the Microwave Humidity Sounder on the
NOAA Polar Operational Environmental Satellites (POES)
from NOAA-18 and EPS; the Advanced Technology Micro-
wave Sounder (ATMS) will be the future instrument onboard
NOAA's National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS). In particular, higher frequencies
should help in mitigating the effects of the poor knowledge of
emissivity and scattering properties of land surfaces that
cause substantial misclassifications when retrieving rain and
snow over land. Staelin and Chen (2000) have developed a
retrieval method based on simultaneous passive observations
in the 50–191 GHz range from AMSU-B on the NOAA-15
satellite calibrated using the WSR-88D radar data over the
Continental United States. A more recent version of the
algorithm based on a neural network approach trained via a
cloud resolving model was proposed (Surussavadee and
Staelin, 2008a,b) that corrects some of the problems arising
from the radar-based approach and demonstrates the
potential of such high-frequency channels for operational
global retrievals. One of the algorithms developed for the
AMSU sensors has already found its way to an operational
global application (Ferraro et al., 2005; Vila et al., 2007) with
the Microwave Surface and Precipitation Products System
(MSPPS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA), which includes precipitation rate, total
precipitable water, land surface emissivity and snow cover.
The MSPPS is now being supplanted by the Microwave
Integrated Retrieval System (MIRS, http://www.osdpd.noaa.
gov/ml/mirs/).
An additional problem with PMW rain retrievals occurs over
coastal areas due to the uncertain combination of land and
ocean surface emissivity effects. In order to counteract these
limitations, Kongoli et al. (2007) have only used the 89, 150,
53.6 (opaque oxygen) and 183 GHz channels that are less
affected by surface emissivity variations. Along similar lines, a
new fast algorithm for research and operational purposes was
conceived by Laviola and Levizzani (2008) using the AMSU-B
water vapour absorption channels at 183 ± 1, ±3 and ±7 GHz.
The method focuses on the scattering and absorption properties
of the 89 and 150 GHz channels to introduce a series of
thresholds that discriminate between raining and non-raining
clouds and that differ between ocean and land backgrounds. A
Probability of Rain Development Function (PORDF) is then
activated when no-rain pixels that are discarded by the
threshold mechanism correspond to rain rates >2 mm h- 1.
This limit value is considered as a crucial threshold between the
condensed non precipitating hydrometeors and the onset of
stratiform rain development (light precipitation). The method
is currently undergoing calibration with European radar data
and represents a step forward in the detection of light rains at
mid latitudes. Fig. 1 shows an example of light rain detection for
a rainfall event over Southern Italy, the Adriatic Sea and the
Balkans: a lack of continuity of the rain system over the Adriatic
as seen by the algorithm is detected when the PORDF is not
used.
Most available retrieval methods focus on rainfall rather
than snowfall retrieval. High-frequency PMW channels as
those of the AMSU-B provide some hope for an extension of
the rainfall algorithm into snow detection and frozen
precipitation estimation. Kongoli et al. (2003) have intro-
duced a new snowfall detection algorithm, which uses the
AMSU brightness temperatures at 176 and 180 GHz to extend
precipitation estimates to falling snow over snow covered
surfaces. An example of an operational detection by the NOAA
operational algorithm suite (R. R. Ferraro, personal commu-
nication) is shown in Fig. 2. A physical model to retrieve
snowfall using AMSU-B high frequency channels was pro-
posed by Skofronick-Jackson et al. (2004) using the theory of
scattering by randomly oriented snow particles which
regards snow as a concatenation of “equivalent” ice spheres
rather than as spheres with the effective dielectric constant of
an air-ice mixture.
A further problem of satellite rainfall retrievals using
PMW sensors is represented by diffraction, which limits the
ground resolution for a given satellite PMW antenna size.
This situation can only be improved by trading off antenna
size and orbit altitude. PMW sensors are thus mounted only
on LEO satellites and this greatly limits the time resolution
of observations. The advent of higher frequency channels
and/or synthetic aperture antenna concepts opens up the
possibility to board the next generation of PMW sensors on
GEO orbit spacecrafts as the GeoSTAR/PATH mission
(Lambrigtsen et al., 2007). It remains to be demonstrated
whether these concepts will provide sufficient complemen-
tary information to LEO systems and infrared sounding
onboard GEO satellites to warrant the substantial technical
effort.
For all these sensors and algorithms, however, a problem
is presented by the lack of information on the vertical
distribution of atmospheric variables, such as temperature
and relative humidity but also hydrometeors. In all algo-
rithms, this information is mostly contributed by a priori
information; i.e., CRM simulations or other training datasets.
These are the most important unknowns in the retrieval
models and their characteristics can only be directly derived
from radar observations. Thus, a combination of passive and
active instruments is the only feasible strategy to improve
cloud and precipitation retrievals from space (Stephens and
Kummerow, 2007) as has been founded by TRMM and will be
further developed in GPM. A conically scanning PMW
radiometer in combination with a 3-beam Ka band nadir-
pointing radar was proposed by Mugnai et al. (2007) as a
European contribution to the GPM (EGPM) mission, which
unfortunately was not funded.
Since November 1997 precipitation retrievals from space
have registered a clear step forward with the launch of
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533 521

Fig. 1. 23 May 2008. Frontal rain system over Southern Italy and the Balkans: a) rain retrieval using AMSU-B PMW channels (Laviola and Levizzani, 2008) with the
addition of Probability of Rain Development Function (PORDF); b) same as a) but without the application of the PORDF. Note the much better captured continuity
of the system structure in a); (courtesy of S. Laviola, ISAC-CNR).

TRMM, which hosts for the first time a Precipitation Radar techniques run operationally (e.g., Iguchi et al., 2000; Haddad
(PR) at 13.8 GHz in space (Kummerow et al., 1998). Since et al., 1997); these products quickly became a reference
then several algorithms have been developed and retrieval against which all other satellite products are compared and
522 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
Fig. 2. 28 October 2008: Detection of a snowfall event over New York and New Jersey accompanied by heavy electrical activity. The detection algorithm is the
operational NOAA suite (Ferraro et al., 2005; Kongoli et al., 2003); (courtesy of R.R. Ferraro, NOAA-NESDIS-STAR, personal communication).
evaluated. Obvious limitations of the sensor are radar beam
attenuation, the TRMM data being limited to the 35 S – 35 N
latitude belt, and the PR's relatively narrow swath (215 km).
The GPM core satellite due for launch in 2013 will host the
DPR at 13.6 and 35.5 GHz with enhanced sensitivity to detect
light rain and snow, the capability to discriminate between
liquid and solid precipitation and more accurate rain
retrievals than the TRMM PR (Nakamura and Iguchi, 2007).
The swath width will remain the same at 13.6 GHz while it
will decrease to 100 km at 35.5 GHz and the spatial beam
matching at the two radar channels is essential. The PR has
also been used to train PMW retrievals using collocated
measurements from both active and passive sensors. This has
been demonstrated to be a very promising avenue in
improving PMW retrieval methods instead of using ground
radar networks that often cause space-time collocation
problems, not to mention the different viewing perspective
and geometry. Recently, Haddad and Park (2009) have
critically examined the reasons why this training of PMW
retrievals with PR data fails on certain occasions over the
ocean: they found that the reason is the unknown signature
of the sea surface in the portion of the beam not filled with
precipitation and proposed a filtering approach for the
problematic cases.
A new opportunity for gaining more insights into cloud and
precipitation formation processes was opened up by the launch
of the CloudSat satellite on 28 April 2006. CloudSat is an
essential component of the A-Train constellation (Stephens et
al., 2002) designed to provide the vertical structure of clouds
combining the CloudSat cloud profiling radar data (CPR) at
94 GHz and radiance data obtained from the other sensors of
the constellation. This is the first attempt to retrieve the
microphysics of liquid and solid cloud particles using passive
radiometers, lidar and radar. The CPR makes it possible for the
first time to observe very complex cloud systems and gain
insights on how to estimate precipitation in rather “difficult”
cases as those shown in Fig. 3. Posselt et al. (2008) have recently
demonstrated how the new CloudSat observations can also
provide new perspectives on the classic theory of extratropical
cyclones. While the CPR is not specifically designed for rain
retrieval, data analyzed after more than two years in orbit have
shown that there exists a potential also for rain estimation at
this frequency, especially at midlatitudes over the ocean
(Haynes et al., 2009).
The wide variety of sensors and retrieval algorithms
suggests that combined retrieval strategies will be instru-
mental for reaching better space-time resolutions and for
alleviating some of the deficiencies of single-sensor methods.
Moreover, as pointed out by Stephens and Kummerow
(2007), cloud and precipitation retrievals are most often
constructed around very unrealistic atmospheric models and
thus are too sensitive to unobserved parameters and to the
atmosphere above and below. Better definitions of the
atmospheric state and the vertical structure of clouds and
precipitation are needed to improve the information
extracted from satellite observations. This is why the
combination of active and passive measurements offers
much hope for improving cloud and precipitation retrievals.
There are several ways of combining passive and active
sensor data in a final blended rainfall product, depending on
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
Fig. 3. Granules of the cloud profiling radar (CPR) from CloudSat orbits showing three different “difficult” cases for precipitation retrieval from space: low level orographic enhancement (upper), mid latitude frontal rain (CF
cold front, WF warm front, middle), and multi-layered clouds (lower); (courtesy of C. Kidd, University of Birmingham, U.K.).

523
524 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
the particular combination of IR, PMW, radar, gauge, lightning
and wind data used. In general, these methods use products
from geostationary satellites or from other sensors on polar
orbiting satellites (e.g., soundings from the TIROS Operational
Vertical Sounder, TOVS or rainfall products from VIS-IR
multispectral retrievals) to fill in the gaps associated with
PMW rainfall intensity products, thus deriving a more
continuous global map. They can be divided into two main
categories: 1) the methods that use ancillary products from
sensors other than those in the PMW to actively “adjust” the
PMW-derived rainfall intensities (e.g., Turk et al., 2000;
Huffman et al., 2007), and 2) those that use the ancillary data
to “transport” the rain maps from one overpass of a PMW
sensor to the next one (e.g., Joyce et al., 2004). Levizzani et al.
(2007) give an account of most of these methods. Here, we
mention four of them to exemplify the concept of multi-
satellite precipitation retrieval.
Turk et al. (2000) have proposed a blending method for
real time rainfall estimation at global scale; the method of the
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), which relates rain retrie-
vals in the PMW to IR Tbs from GEO satellites. The constantly
evolving temporal and spatial characteristics of precipitation
and its relation to satellite observations require that any
statistical tuning or calibration to IR Tb follow the rain
characteristics. The method saves time- and space-coincident
PMW and GEO IR data each time a PMW sensor orbit pass
intersects with any of the operational GEO satellites. Every
three hours, an update cycle starts and locates the most
recent 24 h of past coincident data. Separate histograms of IR
Tbs and the associated PMW-based rain rates are built in
15° × 15° global boxes.
Huffman et al. (2007) have developed the TRMM Multi-
satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA), which provides a
calibration-based sequential scheme for combining precipi-
tation estimates from multiple satellites, as well as gauge
analyses at fine scales (0.25° × 0.25° and 3 hourly). The TMPA
shows reasonable performances at monthly scales, while at
finer scales it reproduces the surface observation–based
histogram of precipitation, as well as reasonably detecting
large daily events. Note that, however, TMPA has lower skill
in correctly specifying moderate and light rain rates on short
time intervals, in common with other fine scale estimators.
The Climate Prediction Center morphing method (CMORPH,
Joyce et al., 2004) uses motion vectors derived from half-hourly
interval GEO IR satellite imagery to propagate the relatively
high quality precipitation estimates derived from PMW data for
a global product. The shape and intensity of precipitation
features are modified (morphed) during the time between
PMW sensor scans by performing a time-weighted linear
interpolation. The process yields spatially and temporally
complete PMW-derived precipitation analyses, independent
of the IR BT field. Note that CMORPH's performance closely
depends on that of the PMW rainfall retrieval method, which
remains the core area of improvement.
The GSMaP Project (Kubota et al., 2007) approach
combines several of the other methods’ main characteristics.
Surface rain rates are retrieved from TMI, the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer for the Earth Observation
System (AMSR-E) and the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager
(SSM/I). GSMaP combines then this PMW product with rain
rates derived from GEO IR data. High temporal interpolation
is obtained by the morphing technique and a Kalman filter
using the IR information.
4. Climatology
As measurements from rain gauges became abundant, a
number of issues regarding the spatio-temporal distribution
of precipitation on both the regional and global scales came
forward. However, when analysing rainfall series spanning
such long time periods, it is likely that the rain gauge data
collected do not reflect uniform conditions. Such an inhomo-
geneity in rainfall data sets may be due to several reasons
(e.g., changes in instrumentation or observation method,
station relocation, maintenance practices). The realization of
the above has led to the postulation that such data sets are
considered as homogeneous when their inherent variations
are caused only by variation in weather and climate (Conrad
and Pollak, 1950). All of the above dictate the performance of
homogeneity testing on observed data in an attempt to assess
such non-climatic influences (see Alexandersson, 1986).
Various tests for homogeneity appropriate for rainfall records
are reviewed by Aguilar et al. (2003) and Leander and
Buishand (2004).
For a better understanding of the global hydrological
cycle, the need for a comprehensive understanding of the
global precipitation climatology is indispensable. Raingauge
measurements formed the basis of the first globally gridded
precipitation data sets that were used in research in a wide
spectrum of applications, such as climate variability, evalu-
ation of Global Circulation Models and later for the calibration
of satellite derived climatic data sets.
Despite their intrinsic inadequacies, precipitation records
from point measurements have formed the backbone of the
first global precipitation climatology studies. A systematic
compilation of precipitation records has been undertaken by
a number of institutions in an effort to archive and distribute
them to interested users. In the following, some of these data
sets are briefly described with appropriate references for the
interested reader:
• The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Nations has compiled a data base of precipitation measure-
ments from rain gauges all around the world. These data,
covering a period from 1961 to 1990, are available online
together with applications designed to extract, analyze
and map the data (http://www.fao.org/nr/climpag/pub/
EN1102_en.asp).
• The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has constructed and
made available historical monthly precipitation data sets
for global land areas from 1900 to 1998, gridded at two
different resolutions (2.5° latitude by 3.75° longitude and 5°
latitude/longitude). These datasets are available at http://
www.cru.uea.ac.uk/.
• The data from the Global Historical Climatology Network
(GHCN) are available from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/
climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php. Two assembling method-
ologies are adopted in preparation of the GHCN climatological
data: duplication elimination and quality control. The latter
includes outlier detection and testing for significant disconti-
nuities. Precipitation data are available for 20,590 stations.
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
The Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC;
http://gpcc.dwd.de) is operated by the Deutscher Wetter-
dienst. GPCC products are gauge-based gridded monthly
precipitation data sets for the global land surface; some of
these datasets extend back to the beginning of the previous
century. GPCC's new global precipitation climatology (avail-
able in 2.5° × 2.5°, 1.0° × 1.0°, 0.5° × 0.5°, and 0.25° × 0.25°
resolution) is based on data from around 50,650 stations.
Establishing a global climatology by using surface point
measurements presents a number of difficulties (Willmott
et al., 1985; Peterson and Easterling, 1994). First, point mea-
surements suffer from a serious non-uniform distribution, as
measurements from rain gauges on the Earth's surface are
available mostly over land and even then are quite rare over
sparsely populated areas. Moreover, point measurements
over the oceans are also quite rare, except for isolated island
and atoll stations, while ship borne measurements are not
continuous (Groisman and Legates, 1995). Second, inhomo-
geneities in precipitation measurements imposed by several
factors (e.g., changes in instrumentation, station relocation,
instrument exposure, etc.) can have an adverse effect on such
precipitation time series used in climatic studies. Kutiel and
Kay (1996) argue that not only the density but also the
geometric arrangement of the rain gauge network can have
important implications in the preparation of climatic maps
for precipitation.
The above inherent problems in point measurements
coupled with several biases disqualifies any set of surface
measurements of precipitation from being sufficient in
yielding an accurate global climatology. Such biases that
have long been documented (WMO, 1973) include the effect
of the wind, the effect of splashing and losses through wetting
and evaporation from the rain gauge.
For the formulation of a more comprehensive precipitation
climatology, technological advances have been greatly ex-
ploited. Indeed, remote sensing technological breakthroughs
have swiftly found their way into various approaches for pro-
ducing more reliable and inclusive climatological profiles
of precipitation. Also, a combination of data from both point
measurements and remote sensing are utilized in such
endeavors.
To overcome the above inherent inadequacies of the rain
gauge data to yield an acceptable global climatology and in
order to address the problem of quantifying the distribution
of precipitation around the globe over many years, the Global
Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) was established by
the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) in 1986 (see
Huffman et al., 1997; Adler et al., 2003).
The approach adopted is to merge data and information
on precipitation that is available from several sources into an
amalgamated product. The sources that are combined during
this task are:
• Microwave estimates that are based on SSM/I data from the
DMSP satellites that fly in sun-synchronous low-Earth orbits.
• Infrared (IR) precipitation estimates that are computed
from geostationary satellites (GOES -United States, GMS/
MTSat – Japan and Meteosat - Eumetsat) and from polar-
orbiting operational satellites (NOAA - United States).
Sources of additional estimates include the low-Earth
orbit Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS data from the
525
NASA Aqua), and Television Infrared Observation Satellite
Program (TIROS) Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS) and
Outgoing Longwave Radiation Precipitation Index (OPI)
data from the NOAA series satellites.
• The rain gauge data that are collected and analyzed by GPCC
(discussed above) and by the Climate Prediction Center of
NOAA.
The initial goal of GPCP was to provide monthly mean
precipitation data on a 2.5 × 2.5 degree latitude-longitude
grid starting in 1979 (see Adler et al., 2003). More recently,
GPCP makes available a 1° × 1° daily data set starting in 1997.
This co-ordinated international effort has even produced
state of the art graphical tools which precipitation researchers
can have at their fingertips through the internet. Monthly or
yearly precipitation averages on a global or local scale,
animations and cross sections covering the period from
January 1979 till today can be viewed (http://cics.umd.edu/
~yin/GPCP/main.html). Fig. 4 shows an example of the GPCP
monthly mean precipitation rate (in mm/day) for the period
January 1979 to December 2007.
An assessment of global precipitation products was recently
published by the World Climate Research Programme (Gruber
and Levizzani, 2008), where a clear need for further data
gathering is indicated to go beyond the current dataset lasting a
little less than 30 years.
The global precipitation climatology exhibits distinct
spatial and seasonal patterns (see Legates and Willmott,
1990). Such global patterns show clearly the strong depen-
dence of the distribution of precipitation on the general
circulation of the atmosphere, significantly modified by local
effects, most notable of which are those imposed by
orographic influence. In general, precipitation maxima occur
within the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) and follow
its seasonal migration; also, precipitation minima are found at
the subsidence zone in both hemispheres (where most of the
world's deserts are located) and in the polar caps.
The average precipitation reaching the entire surface of
the Earth is estimated to be about 1050 mm per year, or
approximately 88 mm per month. However, as stated
previously, there exist large spatio-temporal variations.
Distinct latitudinal variations are recognized as follows:
• The equatorial areas receive solar heating of considerably
higher intensity than the midlatitudes and polar regions;
this together with global circulation patterns that cause
northern and southern air masses to converge, encourages
deep convection along the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone
(ITCZ) and thus high rainfall amounts;
• The subtropical regions are under the influence of subsiding
air associated with the general circulation patterns; this
absence of lifting mechanism renders these regions dry and
dominated by deserts;
• The mid-latitudes are generally affected by the polar front
and its associated cyclonic systems; precipitation in these
areas is mostly related to frontal lifting;
• The polar caps experience a radiative deficit; they are
generally cold and their ability to hold moisture is reduced;
these areas receive little precipitation.
In addition, the land-ocean distribution plays a significant
role in enhancing or modifying the spatio-temporal variations
526 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
Fig. 4. GPCP monthly mean precipitation rate (in mm/day) for the period January 1979 to December 2007.
of precipitation. For example, continental areas tend to be
drier because of their distance from moisture sources. Also,
orographic lifting on the windward side of mountain ranges
can enhance precipitation; on the contrary, on their leeward
slopes precipitation is suppressed, resulting in the rain-
shadow effect.
5. Precipitation in numerical models and data assimilation
The basic methodological issues that are raised in the
context of precipitation forecasting are regional/global
atmospheric/land surface modeling, data assimilation and
model initialization, the parameterization of physical pro-
cesses and observation modeling, and model evaluation and
the definition of model and observation error characteristics.
After some introduction into modeling (sub-section 5.1) and
data assimilation (sub-section 5.2), these issues are described
in more detail in sub-section 5.3.
5.1. Modeling
In NWP, there is a fundamental need to incorporate those
physical processes in the analysis that are linked to
atmospheric moisture (in particular clouds and precipitation)
and to atmospheric dynamics. Diabatic processes are insuf-
ficiently described in NWP models (example: precipitation
spin-up, Puri and Miller, 1990; Rabier et al., 1998); however,
they play a strong role in atmospheric circulation and
therefore NWP model forecasts can be significantly improved
by better parameterizations and by constraining model
analyses with moisture, cloud and precipitation related
observations. Similarly, soil moisture is treated in an over-
simplified manner in most atmospheric analysis systems but
is known to have a significant impact on the atmospheric
moisture and energy budget (e.g., Beljaars et al., 1996; Betts,
2004). On the other hand, land surface models are strongly
driven by accurate precipitation input (Rodell, 2004). Adding
surface variables in atmospheric data assimilation systems
requires additional control variables and careful treatment of
heat/moisture budgets (for ensuring closure) at the surface-
atmosphere interface. In the near future, rather independent
systems will emerge, i.e., land surface data assimilation
systems (LDAS; e.g., Rodell (2004)) that feed information
on moisture/heat fluxes back to the atmospheric analysis
system.
Khain et al. (2000) provide a thorough review of the
current uncertainties in numerical cloud simulation and
separate them into those issues related to the current process
understanding (warm rain and ice processes) and those
related to the implementation of process simulation in
numerical models. The authors specifically recommend
incorporating cloud-aerosol interaction into numerical mod-
els, including highly parameterized ones used in NWP and
climate modeling. The importance of aerosols serving as
nuclei for both droplet and ice particle formation implies a
strong requirement for more specific aerosol observation
capability (including from satellites) that is currently not
available.
Khain et al. (2000) also stress the sensitivity of model
accuracy to the computationally affordable detail that is
resolved by the model. Spectral models can resolve size-
dependent processes that are also very important for aerosol,
liquid and frozen particle interactions. These obviously require
more detailed parameterizations, shorter model integration
time steps and, apart from the additional computational
burden, are more difficult to generalize for global application.
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
As part of the GEWEX Cloud Systems Study (GCSS),
Redelsperger et al. (2000) demonstrate the large variability of
bulk microphysical model simulations of convective cloud
systems obtained with different models that have been
initialized with the same data. Comparison among models
and with observational data showed that the inclusion of ice
parameterizations improved the depiction of the temporal
evolution of the convective system as well as the horizontal
and vertical extent at time scales of a few hours. However, the
simulated hydrometeor contents varied among models by at
least a factor of two which indicates a potential for data
assimilation but also indicates that hydrometeor contents are
associated with large model uncertainties that will be difficult
to constrain with observations while hoping to improve the
dynamical fields at the same time.
Lopez (2007) compiles the cloud parameterization issues
that are mostly relevant to global NWP in the context of data
assimilation. For large-scale models with time steps of 10-
30 minutes the treatment of sub-gridscale convective sys-
tems represents one of the largest challenges. Following
recent observation studies on the scalability of precipitation
(Lovejoy et al., 2008) the statistics of convective activity are
not well captured by large-scale models. For example, the
diurnal cycle of tropical precipitation in particular over land
surfaces is not well modeled. Lopez highlights the need for
better entrainment and scale interaction descriptions as well
as the interaction with surfaces. The question of the
usefulness of data assimilation for constraining moist pro-
cesses and dynamics also depends on the sensitivity of the
analysis state to such observations. The latter may sound
trivial but depends on the data assimilation system itself (e.g.,
adjustment schemes, nudging, variational schemes that use
observations at the appropriate time); whether clouds and
precipitation are part of the analysis control vector; the
degree of simplification employed in the moist physics
parameterizations; statistical correlation between control
variables; balance constraints, etc. (Lopez et al., 2006;
Mahfouf and Bilodeau, 2007). It is therefore important to
perform studies on the improvement of cloud and precipita-
tion processes in models as well as their use within data
assimilation systems in parallel. Consistency between the
schemes that are used in the forecasting model and the
analysis system is thus of utmost importance.
5.2. Data assimilation
Over the last 20 years, the assimilation of precipitation has
been developed from physical initialization (e.g., Krishna-
murti et al., 1984) to four-dimensional variational assimila-
tion schemes (e.g., Zupanski and Mesinger, 1995). At
operational centers, rainfall observations are assimilated
based on ground-based radar data at the Japan Meteorolog-
ical Agency (JMA) (regional model, 4D-Var; Tsuyuki et al.,
2002) and using satellite retrievals at the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction (NCEP) (global model, 3D-Var;
Treadon, 1997). At the European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), the assimilation of rain-
affected microwave radiances became operational in 2005
(Bauer et al., 2006a,b). The latter represented the first global
4D-Var system in which rain observations are routinely
assimilated. This indicates that the assimilation of cloud and
527
rain related observations is on the verge of operational
implementation at many NWP centers (as were spaceborne
observations of atmospheric temperature and moisture about
20 years ago).
Given the strongly underconstrained nature of cloud and
precipitation inversion from spaceborne observations and the
issues associated with retrievals being mostly constrained by
statistical databases, data assimilation at regional or global
scales may be the best way of deriving reliable precipitation
estimates. Most NWP models provide precipitation forecasts
without using cloud or precipitation-affected observations
which suggests that it is necessary to run entire moist physics
parameterization schemes within three-dimensional dynam-
ical models to provide hydrometeor distributions that are
consistent with dynamics evolving over sufficiently long time
scales. While this can produce realistic precipitation distribu-
tions even without direct observations of rainfall it is
questionable whether many satellite observations that are
used for precipitation retrieval can produce realistic precip-
itation distributions without a consistent dynamic modeling
component.
Data assimilation involves a large and very diverse
number of observational and background data. One impor-
tant requirement is the capability to run accurate and
computationally efficient observation operators that map
geophysical quantities into the observation space. In case of
level-2 product assimilation, observation operators mainly
perform interpolation or averaging. For level-1 products (i.e.,
radiances or reflectivities) the operator may comprise
physical parameterization schemes, radiative transfer models
and also interpolation/averaging schemes. The preference of
level-1 or level-2 products depends on modeling capability
but also operational constraints, e.g., flexibility of data
handling when changes occur in observation quality, bias
correction, or observation error definition. The effort involved
in these aspects is not to be underestimated and consumes a
large part of the developments needed to assimilate a new
observation type in an operational system. Level-1 product
assimilation requires radiative transfer models that simulate
radiances or reflectivities from model fields as observed from
space. For microwave and infrared wavelengths (radars and
radiometers), the achievable accuracy of the radiative
transfer models is generally very high (Smith et al., 2002;
Greenwald et al., 2002; Sun and Wilson, 2003) if the input
parameters for defining the optical properties of hydrome-
teors are known and there are a number of fast and accurate
models that have been implemented in operational environ-
ments (Bauer et al., 2006c). The errors associated with these
models become considerable at higher frequencies (above
150 GHz) but are still much smaller than errors originating
from the missing knowledge of cloud properties and forecast
model errors.
Errico et al. (2007b) summarize the most important issues
related to the assimilation of cloud and precipitation
observations and conclude that since there is very little
experience with data assimilation of observations related to
moist processes, much fundamental evaluation of suitability
and performance of existing data assimilation systems will
have to be performed to ensure that these produce an optimal
analysis over a wide range of situations. Some of the most
prominent problems are the non-linearity of models and
528 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
unknown observation and background errors. Non-linearity
means that the sensitivity of the parameterizations to input
parameter perturbations is strongly state dependent. Varia-
tional data assimilation methods usually solve the analysis
problem through optimal analysis that is constrained by a
first-guess state estimate and that is improved on by an
iterative application of the model's gradient scaled with the
observation contribution that is normalized by observation
and background (and model) errors. In case of strong non-
linearities, the gradients may become unrealistic and produce
erroneous analysis increments to model state variables. This
in turn may affect balance and stability.
In an idealized modeling framework, Vukicevic and Posselt
(2008) evaluate the dependence of the inverse problem
solution on model non-linearity (and non-monotonicity) and
emphasize the risk of finding non-unique solutions (i.e. non-
optimal analyses). This risk is greatly increased if model errors
are significant but it can also be decreased by the cumulative
impact of independent observations. Ensemble Kalman filter
methods may offer a viable alternative in this case but are
currently impossible to run at resolutions processed with
variational methods at operational NWP centres.
Observation and background errors are difficult to
quantify due to the complexity of the involved processes.
Also the errors may be strongly state dependent and may not
be represented by general Gaussian statistics. Ensemble data
assimilation may be one way to obtain more realistic model
errors as a function of state (Evensen, 1994). These methods
are currently being developed and promise to provide better
statistics and a more balanced weight between model
forecasts and observations in the analysis.
Data assimilation on regional scales has the potential to
resolve fine-scale structures and microphysical processes
with more detail. However, the number of degrees of freedom
and modeling uncertainties is large and the models are more
non-linear than global models. This background does not
necessarily facilitate the assimilation of rainfall observations.
There have been a number of studies on non-linear 4D-Var
assimilation using geostationary spaceborne observations
that demonstrate sensitivity of model initial conditions to
observational input (e.g., Greenwald et al., 2004) and in
which model fields are successfully constrained by observa-
tions (e.g., Zupanski and Mesinger, 1995; Zou and Kuo, 1996;
Vukicevic et al., 2004). However, more systematic research is
required to understand the importance of background and
observation error formulation and non-linear and non-
regular model behaviour at these scales before high-resolu-
tion systems will benefit from cloud and precipitation data
assimilation. With the development of ensemble forecasting
and, potentially ensemble data assimilation (Evensen, 1994),
the quantification of forecasting uncertainty and predictabil-
ity can be addressed. This methodology seems particularly
promising for precipitation forecasting due to the stochastic
characteristics of precipitation patterns which may be dif-
ficult to capture by deterministic forecasting only. In nested
modeling that employs ensembles at all scales (e.g., from
global to regional NWP models and to local hydrological
models), the uncertainties of precipitation forecasting ex-
pressed by the spread between ensemble members can be
propagated to the coarsest scale so that non-linear error
propagation is directly accounted for.
In Europe, there is a variety of systems in which
hydrological models are already partly initialized and forced
by NWP ensemble forecasts, mainly for the purpose of flood
forecasting (e.g., compiled by Cloke and Pappenberger, 2009).
A prominent example is the European Flood Alert System
that employs ECMWF forecasts and the Consortium for Small-
scale Modeling - Limited-area Ensemble Prediction System
(COSMO-LEPS, Thielen et al., 2008). Cloke and Pappenberger
(2009) summarize the current status of such model cascades
and note that despite the success of individual case studies
little evidence of systematic improvement of ensemble over
deterministic flood forecasting is available. This is mainly
associated with the lack of horizontal resolution of NWP
ensemble systems, the limited number of ensemble members,
the lack of forecast spread that is connected to the under-
standing of forecast errors and how these are being addressed
in the perturbation of the initial state. Despite these problems,
cascaded ensemble forecasting is very promising due to the
extra information on parameter distributions that can not be
easily described by mean and variance.
5.3. Requirements
Fig. 5 makes an attempt to provide a structure of the
connection among these different components. Three basic
model categories can be placed in hierarchical order such that
global model output is used for constraining regional models
and regional (and to some extent global) model data constrain
land surface models (and vice versa depending on the coupling
and completeness of the hydrology models). Note that land
surface models can be directly linked to global atmospheric
models without intervention by regional models.
Indirectly, the lower-level model validates the upper level
one through performance analysis based on the input from the
upper level. This may be performed with data with better
spatial and temporal resolution than the higher-level model
category and can support the analysis of scale dependent issues.
This evaluation can also include sensitivity analyses that
indicate the dependence of the higher resolution model
performance on the lower resolution model type; i. e., its
general set-up, the employed physical parameterizations, the
data assimilation system and the observational data that is used
in the analysis. Land surface models are somewhat decoupled
because they often include independent analysis systems and
often only treat the atmosphere as a boundary problem.
Initialization and forcing works in both directions, where
regional/global atmospheric model precipitation serves as
input to land surface models and soil moisture constrains the
lower boundary condition of atmospheric models. Clearly, the
structure in Fig. 5 is based on the availability of land surface and
atmospheric modeling capabilities from local to global scale as
well as a variety of data assimilation schemes for constraining
the model initial conditions with observations related to clear-
skies, clouds, precipitation and land surfaces. The complexity of
the issues is largely determined by: (1) the scale of application;
(2) the degree of detail to which the moist physical processes
are modeled; (3) the analysis/initialization procedure; (4) the
type of observational data. For this purpose, a rather wide range
of regional hydrostatic and non-hydrostatic models should be
involved. Various initialization, forcing and physical parame-
terization schemes are available that allow the cross-validation
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
Fig. 5. Interaction between global/regional NWP and land surface modeling as well as relation of various data to model validation, forcing and data assimilation
(importance indicated by line thickness).
of model analysis/forecast sensitivity with regard to model type
and available observational data.
The item on satellite data/products in Fig. 5 contains much
more than just precipitation data. Numerical forecast models
produce precipitation simulations without being constrained
by precipitation or cloud observations, in many cases even
without any humidity data at all. However, better moisture
analyses must employ humidity observations and, dependent
on the skill of the analysis system, even precipitation data.
The important components that are required for improved
precipitation forecasting and the most pressing develop-
ments to fill in a system as sketched in Fig. 5 are:
Land surface modeling and data assimilation:
1. Derivation of seasonally dependent vegetation properties
constrained by satellite data (land surface temperature,
vegetation index, heating rates) through the extension of
existing variational assimilation schemes for soil water
content based on screen-level parameters. At a later stage,
employment of direct soil moisture estimates from passive
microwave observations (such as the Soil Moisture Ocean
Salinity Sensor, SMOS).
2. Implementation of land surface data assimilation schemes
in regional weather forecasting models such as the High
Resolution Limited Area Model (HIRLAM) with participa-
tion from many European meteorological services.
3. Development of testbeds with online land data assimilation
systems forced by remotely sensed observations of precip-
itation and model-predicted near surface atmospheric
conditions (air temperature, humidity, winds, radiation
budget fields) to dynamically determine the most suitable
land surface boundary conditions for meteorological models.
4. Implementation of a combined surface-atmosphere fore-
casting system aiming at an operational environment.
Physical parameterizations:
1. Development of explicit microphysical schemes for non-
hydrostatic cloud- resolving models (CRM).
2. Development and validation of regularized and linearized
physical parameterizations of moist processes needed for
variational data assimilation.
529
3. Establishment of the physical basis for nudging-model
environmental properties on the basis of continuous lightning
observations.
Observation operators:
1. Development of forward operators that allow conversion
between model and observation variables (satellite radiances,
radar reflectivities).
2. Development of methods to address spatial representa-
tiveness differences between models and data.
3. Definition of observation error covariance matrices and
spatial error correlations in the case of high-density data.
Data assimilation systems:
1. Development of modules for nudging techniques for
temperature and moisture profiles, rainfall and cloud
cover observations, and possibly lightning.
2. Development of physical initialization techniques for cloud
parameters and rainfall observations.
3. Implementation of modules for variational data assimila-
tion schemes for radar reflectivity and rainfall, satellite
infrared/microwave radiance, GPS zenith path delay, rain
gauge observations.
4. Implementation of modules for nudging/adjustment of
model physics by rainfall and latent heat observations.
Regional model initialization/forcing with global model data:
1. Investigation of regional model sensitivity to initial/boun-
dary conditions.
2. Implementation of operational ensemble forecasting at
regional scales.
Regional/global model data assimilation experimentation:
1. Development of a general data assimilation test-bed for
model intercomparison at regional/global scales.
2. Combined model analysis/forecast performance evaluation.
Model evaluation:
1. Collection and archiving of datasets of coincident global
forecast model profiles and satellite observations as well as
field campaign and model data.
530 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
2. Development of a reference methodology for model versus
data comparison within data assimilation frameworks.
Explicit treatment of sampling and sub-grid scale issues
and quality control for the various datasets.
3. Development of methodologies to evaluate representa-
tiveness and sampling errors, as well as spatial correlations
of errors of various observation datasets.
Note that many of these requirements exist and require
further development and improvement. The above compo-
nents are strongly connected, with the output of one package
often being input to another. Ideally, a joint effort among
atmospheric and land surface modeling, data assimilation,
satellite data analysis and validation communities will lead to
better individual systems but, most of all, to multiple model
systems with open data assimilation frameworks that can
deal with the large variety of observations that is currently
available and that also include cloud and precipitation
observations from ground and space.
6. Summary – conclusion
This review paper focused on aspects of precipitation
research relating to measurements and applications. Research
on precipitation can definitively advance our ability to predict
the water cycle mechanisms contributing to extreme events
(floods, droughts). Arguably, improving the use of observing
systems at global and local scale, the understanding of the
involved physical processes and the integration of measure-
ments in atmospheric and hydrologic models will greatly
advance our capability to make better quantitative precipi-
tation forecasts with consequential improvements in hydro-
logic forecasting and water resources management. It is
pertinent, at this point, to note the role of Global Precipitation
Measurement (GPM) mission (scheduled for launch in the
2013 timeframe) where global high-resolution satellite
precipitation products will be available every 3 hours for
use in hydrologic and weather/climate applications; such
products will also improve the accuracy of the already
available products by dwelling on enhanced intersatellite
calibration techniques. Another point to note is that the high
uncertainty associated with satellite-based measurements
can have a non-linear and deteriorating impact on the
accuracy of model forecasts. As a consequence, future
research should seek to establish a clear understanding of
the scales at which GPM rainfall products can be proficiently
used and the implications of rainfall error propagation on the
prediction and forecast accuracy of water cycle parameters,
which is vital towards achieving better decision support for
water and disaster management through Earth observations.
Apart from these general considerations, there are a
number of fundamental issues that precipitation observation
and modeling has to deal with and that will ultimately affect
the quality of future products employed by applications
across all scales.
The combination of precipitation observations from
various sources, either for the purpose of validating one
product with another or in the context of product merging,
presents the problem of data representativeness. Precipita-
tion products from ground-based observations represent
points while spaceborne (and ground-based radar) observa-
tions represent volumes. Depending on which remote
sensing technique has been used very different elements of
clouds contribute most to the signal so that combined
products have very different error characteristics than those
of the individual contributions. This issue of representative-
ness and its impact on product errors is currently not
sufficiently addressed in most algorithms. In terms of rainfall
verification, more fuzzy approaches based on general precip-
itation system characteristics should be used (e.g., Ebert,
2008). However, the verification task must account for
whether general rainfall statistics or accurate location and
timing is assessed. In terms of climatological products, there
is no information available on how the errors associated with
individual algorithm components propagate into the final
product.
Another aspect is that all remote sensing techniques suffer
from the fact that too little independent information is
available to depict rainclouds with too many degrees of
freedom. The use of CRM databases in the ‘so-called’ physical
satellite retrieval algorithms may introduce large biases
because CRM simulations are highly individual and do not
satisfy the requirement for general algorithm applicability.
Given the above big issues of representativeness and the
underconstrained nature of the precipitation retrieval prob-
lem, there is a need for combined efforts in remote sensing,
modeling and assimilation to produce useful products. This
requirement is not only valid for precipitation estimation, but
precipitation is certainly one of the most prominent examples
where this combination is key for developing the next-
generation of products.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers
whose recommendations and comments have led to im-
provements in this paper.
References
Adler, R.F., Huffman, G.J., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Xie, P., Janowiak, J., Rudolf, B.,
Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., Arkin, P., 2003.
The Version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly
Precipitation Analysis (1979-Present). J. Hydrometeorol. 4, 1147–1167.
Aguilar, E., Auer, I., Brunet, M., Peterson, T.C., Wieringa, J., 2003. Guidelines on
climate metadata and homogenization. World Meteorological Organi-
zation (2003). WMO/TD No.1186, 50 pp.
Alexandersson, H., 1986. A homogeneity test applied to precipitation
data. J. Climatol. 6, 661–675.
Alter, C., 1937. Shielded storage precipitation gauges. Mon. Weather Rev. 65,
262–265.
American Meteorological Society, 2000. In: Glickman, T.S. (Ed.), Glossary of
Meteorology, 2nd Edition. American Meteorological Society, Boston.
Anagnostou, E.N., Krajewski, W.F., Smith, J., 1999. Uncertainty Quantification
of Mean-Areal Radar-Rainfall Estimates. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 16,
206–215.
Anagnostou, E.N., Anagnostou, M.N., Krajewski, W.F., Kruger, A., Miriovsky, B.J.,
2004. High-resolution rainfall estimation from X-band polarimetric radar
measurements. J. Hydrometeorol. 5, 110–128.
Anagnostou, E.N., Grecu, M., Anagnostou, M.N., 2006a. X-band Polarimetric
Radar Rainfall Measurements in Keys Area Microphysics Project. J. Atmos.
Sci. 63, 187–203.
Anagnostou, M.N., Anagnostou, E.N., Vivekananda, J., 2006b. Correction for
Rain-Path Specific and Differential Attenuation of X-band Dual-Polari-
zation Observations. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 44, 2470–2480.
Anagnostou, M.N., Anagnostou, E.N., Vivekanandan, J., 2007. Comparison of
Raindrop Size Distribution Estimates from X-Band and S-Band Polari-
metric Observations. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 4, 601–605.
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
Anagnostou, M.N., Anagnostou, E.N., Vivekanandan, J., Fred, L.Ogden, 2008a.
Comparison of Two Raindrop Size Distribution Retrieval Algorithms for
X-Band Dual Polarization Observations. J. Hydrometeorol. 9, 589–600.
Anagnostou, M.N., Anagnostou, E.N., Gianfranco, V., Montopoli, M., Marzano,
F.S., Vivekanandan, J., 2008b. Evaluation of X-band polarimetric radar
estimates of drop size distribution from coincident S-band polarimetric
estimates and measured raindrop spectra. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sens. 46, 3067–3075.
Bauer, P., 2001. Over-ocean rainfall retrieval from multi-sensor data of the
Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)-Part I: Development of
inversion databases. J. Atmos. Ocean. Techol. 18, 1315–1330.
Bauer, P., Lopez, P., Benedetti, A., Salmond, D., Moreau, E., 2006a. Implemen-
tation of 1D+ 4D-Var assimilation of precipitation affected microwave
radiances at ECMWF, Part I: 1D-Var. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 132, 2277–2306.
Bauer, P., Lopez, P., Benedetti, A., Salmond, D., Saarinen, S., Bonazzola, M., 2006b.
Implementation of 1D+ 4D-Var assimilation of precipitation affected
microwave radiances at ECMWF, Part II: 4D-Var. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc.
132, 2307–2332.
Bauer, P., Moreau, E., Chevallier, F., Keefe, U.O., 2006c. Multiplescattering
microwave radiative transfer for data assimilation applications. Q. J. R.
Meteorol. Soc. 132, 1259–1281.
Beljaars, A.C.M., Viterbo, P., Miller, M.J., Betts, A.K., 1996. The anomalous
rainfall over the United States during July 1933: Sensitivity to land
surface parameterization and soil moisture anomalies. Mon. Weather
Rev. 124, 362–383.
Betts, A.K., 2004. Understanding hydrometeorology using global models.
Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc. 85, 1673–1688.
Brandes, E.A., Ryzhkov, A.V., Zrnic, D.S., 2001. An evaluation of radar rainfall
estimates from specific differential phase. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 18,
363–375.
Brandes, E.A., Zhang, G., Vivekanandan, J., 2002. Experiments in rainfall estimation
with a polarimetric radar in a subtropical environment. J. Appl. Meteorol. 41,
674–685.
Brandes, E.A., Zhang, G., Vivekanandan, J., 2003. An evaluation of a drop
distribution based rainfall estimator. J. Appl. Meteorol. 42, 652–660.
Brandes, E.A., Zhang, G., Vivekanandan, J., 2004. Drop size distribution
retrieval with polarimetric radar: Model and Application. J. Appl.
Meteorol. 43, 461–475.
Bringi, V.N., Chandrasekar, V., 2001. Polarimetric Doppler Weather Radar:
Principles and Applications. Cambridge University Press. 648 pp.
Bringi, V.N., Huang, Gwo-Jong, Chandrasekar, V., Gorgucci, E., 2002. A
methodology for estimating the parameters of a gamma raindrop size
distribution model from polarimetric radar data: application to a squall-line
event from the TRMM/Brazil campaign. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 19,
633–645.
Bringi, V.N., Tang, T., Chandrasekar, V., 2004. Evaluation of a New Polarime-
trically Based Z–R Relation. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 21, 612–623.
Chandrasekar, V., Bringi, V.N., Balakrishnan, N., Zrnic, D.S., 1990. Error
structure of multiparameter radar and surface measurements of rainfall.
Part III: Specific differential phase. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 7, 621–629.
Chandrasekar, V., Lim, S., Bharadwaj, N., Li, W., McLaughlin, D., Bringi, V.N.,
Gorgucci, E., 2004. Principles of networked weather radar operation at
attenuating frequencies. 3rd European Conference on Radar in Meteo-
rology and Hydrology, Visby, Sweden, pp. 67–73.
Chandrasekar, V., Hou, Arthur, Smith, Eric, Bringi, V.N., Rutledge, S.A., Gorgucci, E.,
Petersen, W.A., Jackson, GailSkofronick, 2008. Potential Role Of Dual-
Polarization Radar In The Validation Of Satellite Precipitation Measurements:
Rationale and Opportunities. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 89, 1127–1145.
Cloke, H.L., Pappenberger, F., 2009. Ensemble flood forecasting: a review.
J. Hydrol. 375, 613–626.
Conrad, V., Pollak, L.W., 1950. Methods in Climatology. Harvard University
Press, Massachusetts, Cambridge. 459 pp.
Ebert, E.E., 2008. Fuzzy verification of high-resolution gridded forecasts: A
review and proposed framework. Meteorol. Appl. 15, 51–64.
Errico, R.M., Ohring, G., Bauer, P., Ferrier, B., Mahfouf, J.-F., Turk, J., Weng, F.,
2007a. Assimilation of satellite cloud and precipitation observations in
numerical weather prediction models: Introduction to the JAS special
issue. J. Atmos. Sci. 64, 3737–3741.
Errico, R.M., Bauer, P., Mahfouf, J.-F., 2007b. Issues regarding the assimilation
of cloud and precipitation data. J. Atmos. Sci. 64, 3785–3797.
Evensen, G., 1994. Sequential data assimilation with a nonlinear quasigeostrophic
model using Monte-Carlo methods to forecast error statistics. J. Geophys. Res.
99, 10143–10162.
Ferraro, R.R., Weng, F., Grody, N.C., Zhao, L., Meng, H., Kongoli, C., Pellegrino,
P., Qiu, S., Dean, C., 2005. NOAA operational hydrological products
derived from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 43, 1036–1049.
Gorgucci, E., Scarchilli, G., 1997. Intercomparison of multiparameter radar
algorithms for estimating rainfall rate. Preprints, 28th Conf. on Radar
Meteorology. Amer. Meteor. Soc., Austin, TX, pp. 55–56.
531
Gorgucci, E., Scarchilli, G., Chandrasekar, V., 1994. A robust estimator of rainfall
rate using differential reflectivity. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 11, 586–592.
Gorgucci, E., Scarchilli, G., Chandrasekar, V., Bringi, V.N., 2000. Measurement
of Mean Raindrop Shape from Polarimetric Radar Observations. J. Atmos.
Sci. 57, 3406–3413.
Gorgucci, E., Scarchilli, G., Chandrasekar, V., Bringi, V.N., 2001. Rainfall
Estimation from Polarimetric Radar Measurements: Composite Algo-
rithms Immune to Variability in Raindrop Shape–Size Relation. J. Atmos.
Ocean. Technol. 18, 1773–1786.
Gorgucci, E., Chandrasekar, V., Baldini, L., 2006. Correction of X-Band Radar
Observation for Propagation Effects Based on the Self Consistency
Principle. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 23, 1668–1681.
Greenwald, T.J., Hertenstein, R., Vukicevic, T., 2002. An all-weather
observation operator for radiance data assimilation with mesoscale
forecast models. Mon. Weather Rev. 130, 1882–1897.
Greenwald, T.J., Vukicevic, T., Grasso, L.D., Vonder Haar, T.H., 2004. Adjoint
sensitivity analysis of an observational operator for visible and infrared
cloudy-sky radiance assimilation. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 130, 685–705.
Groisman, P.Y., Legates, D.R., 1995. Documenting and detecting long-term
precipitation trends: Where are we and what should be done? Clim.
Change 31, 601–622.
Grossklaus, M., Uhlig, K., Hasse, L., 1998. An Optical Disdrometer for Use in
High Wind Speeds. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 15 (4), 1051–1059.
Gruber, A., Levizzani, V., Editors, 2008. Assessment of global precipitation products.
WCRP Series Report No. 128 and WMO TD-No. 1430, p. 55. [available at http://
wcrp.wmo.int/documents/AssessmentGlobalPrecipitationReport.pdf].
Haddad, Z.S., Park, K.-W., 2009. Vertical profiling of precipitation using
passive microwave observations: The main impediment and a proposed
solution. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D06118. doi:10.1029/2008JD010744.
Haddad, Z., Smith, E.A., Kummerow, C.D., Iguchi, T., Farrar, M., Darden, S.,
Alves, M., Olson, W., 1997. The TRMM ‘Day-1’ radar/radiometer
combined rain-profiling algorithm. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 75, 799–809.
Haynes, J.M., L'Ecuyer, T.S., Stephens, G.L., Miller, S.D., Mitrescu, C., Wood, N.B.,
Tanelli, S., 2009. Rainfall retrieval over the ocean with spaceborne W-band
radar. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D00A22. doi:10.1029/2008JD009973.
Hou, A.Y., Skofronick-Jackson, G., Kummerow, C.D., Shepherd, J.M., 2008.
Global precipitation measurement. In: Michaelides, S. (Ed.), Precipita-
tion: Advances in measurement, estimation and prediction. Springer,
pp. 131–169.
Huffman, G.J., Adler, R.F., Arkin, P., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Gruber, A., Janowiak,
J., McNab, A., Rudolf, B., Schneider, U., 1997. The Global Precipitation
Climatology Project (GPCP) combined precipitation dataset. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 78, 5–20.
Huffman, G.J., Adler, R.F., Bolvin, D.T., Gu, G., Nelkin, E.J., Bowman, K.P., Hong,
Y., Stocker, E.F., Wolff, D.B., 2007. The TRMM Multisatellite Precipitation
Analysis (TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear, combined-sensor precipita-
tion estimates at fine scales. J. Hydrometeorol. 8, 38–55.
Hunter, S., 1996. WSR-88D radar rainfall estimation: capabilities, limitations
and potential improvements. NWA Digest 20, 26–36.
Iguchi, T., Kozu, T., Meneghini, R., Awaka, J., Okamoto, K., 2000. Rain-profiling
algorithm for the TRMM precipitation radar. J. Appl. Meteorol. 39,
2038–2052.
Joss, J., Waldvogel, A., 1967. Ein Spektrograph für Niederschlagstropfen mit
automatischer Auswertung (A spectrograph for rain drops with auto-
matical analysis). Pure Appl. Geophys. 68, 240–246.
Joyce, R.J., Janowiak, J.E., Arkin, P.A., Xie, P., 2004. CMORPH: A method that
produces global precipitation estimates from passive microwave and
infrared data at high spatial and temporal resolution. J. Hydrometeorol.
5, 487–503.
Khain, A., Ovtchinnikov, M., Pinsky, M., Pokrovsky, A., Krugliak, H., 2000.
Notes on the state-of-the-art numerical modeling of cloud microphysics.
Atmos. Res. 55, 159–224.
Kitchen, H., Jackson, P.M., 1993. Weather radar performance at long range -
simulated and observed. J. Appl. Meteorol. 32, 975–985.
Kongoli, C., Pellegrino, P., Ferraro, R.R., Grody, N.C., Meng, H., 2003. A new snowfall
detection algorithm over land using measurements from the Advanced
Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU). Geophys. Res. Lett. 30. doi:10.1029/
2003GL017177.
Kongoli, C., Ferraro, R.R., Pellegrino, P., Meng, H., Dean, C., 2007. Utilization of
the AMSU high frequency measurements for improved coastal rain
retrievals. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L17809. doi:10.1029/2007GL029940.
Krajewski, W.F., et al., 2006. A remote sensing observatory for hydrologic
sciences: A genesis for scaling to continental hydrology. Water Resour.
Res. 42 (7), W07301. doi:10.1029/2005WR004435.
Krishnamurti, T.N., Ingles, K., Cocke, S., Pasch, R., Kitade, T., 1984. Details
of low latitude medium range numerical weather prediction using a
global spectral model, II: Effect of orography and physical initializa-
tion. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 62, 613–649.
Kruger, A., Krajewski, W.F., 2001. Two-Dimensional Video Disdrometer: A
Description. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 9, 602–617.
532 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
Kubota, T., Shige, S., Hashizume, H., Aonashi, K., Takahashi, N., Seto, S., Hirose, M.,
Takayabu, Y.N., Nakagawa, K., Iwanami, K., Ushio, T., Kachi, M., Okamoto, K.,
2007. Global precipitation map using satelliteborne microwave radio-
meters by the GSMaP Project: Production and Validation. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 45, 2259–2275.
Kummerow, C.D., 1998. Beamfilling errors in passive microwave rainfall
retrieval. J. Appl. Meteorol. 37, 356–370.
Kummerow, C.D., Barnes, W., Kozu, T., Shiue, J., Simpson, J., 1998. The
Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) sensor package. J. Atmos.
Ocean. Technol. 15, 809–817.
Kummerow, C., Hong, Y., Olson, W.S., Yang, S., Adler, R.F., McCollum, J.,
Ferraro, R., Petty, G., Shin, D.-B., Wilheit, T.T., 2001. The evolution of the
Goddard Profiling Algorithm (GPROF) for rainfall estimation from
passive microwave sensors. J. Appl. Meteorol. 40, 1801–1820.
Kummerow, C.D., Masunaga, H., Bauer, P., 2007. A next-generation
microwave rainfall retrieval algorithm for use by TRMM and GPM.
In: Levizzani, V., Bauer, P., Turk, J. (Eds.), 2007: Measuring pre-
cipitatioon from space, EURAINSAT and the future. Advances in
Global Space Research, No. 28. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
pp. 235–251.
Kutiel, H., Kay, P.A., 1996. Effects of network design on climatic maps of
precipitation. Clim. Res. 7, 1–10.
Kwun, S.-K., 2006. Rainfall observations in Korea by the world's first rain gauge.
Paddy Water Environ. 4, 67–69. doi:10.1007/s10333-006-0033-y.
La Barbera, P., Lanza, L.G., Stagi, L., 2002. Tipping bucket mechanical errors and
their influence on rainfall statistics and extremes. Water Sci. Technol. 45, 1–10.
Lambrigtsen, B., Tanner, A., Gaier, T., Kangaslahti, P., Brown, S., 2007. Prototyping
GeoSTAR for the PATH Mission. NASA Science Technology Conf., Adelphi,
MD, 19-21 June. [available at http://esto.nasa.gov/conferences/nstc2007/
papers/Lambrigtsen_Bjorn_B1P4_NSTC-07-0020.pdf].
Lane, J., Datta, S., Roy, B., Kasparis, T., Jones, L., Qahwash, M., Ding, Z., 1999. High
Spatial Resolution Rainfall Mapping From NASA's Dense Rain Gauge
Network. ASAE Florida Section Annual Conference, Key Largo FL, May 1999.
Laviola, S., Levizzani, V., 2008. Rain retrieval using the 183 GHz absorption
lines. IEEE Proc. MicroRad 2008, 10th Specialist Meeting of Microwave
Radiometry and Remote Sensing of the Environment, Firenze, 11-14 Mar.
doi:10.1109/MICRAD.2008.4579505.
Leander, A., Buishand, T.A., 2004. Rainfall generator for Meuse basin –
Inventory and homogeneity analysis of long daily precipitation records.
KNMI Publication, p. 196-II. 23 pp.
Legates, D.R., Willmott, C.J., 1990. Mean seasonal and spatial variability in
gauge-corrected, global precipitation. Int. J. Climatol. 10, 111–127.
León, L.V., Huang, G.J., Liu, Y.X., Bringi, V.N., Loftus, A., 2007. Rain and Wet
Hail Specific Attenuation Estimation for a 3D supercell case using RAMS
model to simulate CASA X-band and WSR-88D S-band radar signals. AMS
Conference on Radar Meteorology.
Levizzani, V., Bauer, P., Turk, J. (Eds.), 2007. Measuring precipitation from
space, EURAINSAT and the future. Advances in Global Space Research,
No. 28. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 722 pp.
Lopez, P., 2007. Cloud and precipitation parameterizations in modeling and
variational data assimilation: A review. J. Atmos. Sci. 64, 3766–3784.
Lopez, P., Benedetti, A., Bauer, P., Janiskova, M., Kohler, M., 2006. Experimental
2D-Var assimilation of ARM cloud and precipitation observations. Q. J. R.
Meteorol. Soc. 132, 1325–1347.
Lovejoy, A., Schertzer, D., Allaire, V.C., 2008. The remarkable wide range
spatial scaling of TRMM precipitation. Atmos. Res. 90, 10–32.
Lundberg, A., Halldin, S., 2001. Snow measurement techniques for land-
surface atmosphere exchange studies in boreal landscapes. Theor. Appl.
Climatol. 70, 215–230.
Mahfouf, J.-F., Bilodeau, B., 2007. Adjoint sensitivity of surface precipitation
to initial conditions. Mon. Weather Rev. 135, 2879–2896.
Marzano, F.S., Scaranari, D., Montopoli, M., Vulpiani, G., Anagnostou, M.N.,
Anagnostou, E.N., 2007. Bayesian Classification of Hydrometeors from
Polarimetric Radars at S and X Band: Algorithm Design and Experimental
Comparisons. In the proceedings of the IEEE International Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Symposium. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Society, Barcelona, Spain.
Matrosov, S.Y., Clark, A., Martner, B.E., Tokay, A., 2002. X-band polarimetric
radar measurements of rainfall. J. Appl. Meteorol. 41, 941–952.
Matrosov, S.Y., Kingsmill, D.E., Martner, B.E., Ralph, F.M., 2005. The Utility of
X-Band Polarimetric Radar for Quantitative Estimates of Rainfall
Parameters. J. Hydrometeorol. 6, 248–262.
Moisseev, D.N., Chandrasekar, V., 2007. Nonparametric Estimation of
Raindrop Size Distributions from Dual-Polarization Radar Spectral
Observations. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 24, 1008–1018.
Moisseev, D.N., Chandrasekar, V., Unal, C.M.H., Russchenberg, H.W.J., 2006.
Dual-Polarization Spectral Analysis for Retrieval of Effective Raindrop
Shapes. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 23, 1682–1695.
Mugnai, A., Smith, E.A., Tripoli, G.J., 1993. Foundations for statistical-physical
precipitation retrieval from passive microwave satellite measurements.
Part II: Emission-source and generalized weighting-function properties
of a time-dependent cloud-radiation model. J. Appl. Meteorol. 32, 17–39.
Mugnai, A., Di Michele, S., Smith, E.A., Baordo, F., Bauer, P., Bizzarri, B., Joe, P.,
Kidd, C., Marzano, F.S., Tassa, A., Testud, J., Tripoli, G.J., 2007. Snowfall
measurements by proposed European GPM mission. In: Levizzani, V.,
Bauer, P., Turk, F.J. (Eds.), Measuring precipitation from space. Springer,
pp. 655–674.
Nakakita, E., Takehata, H., Nakagawa, 2008. Validation of the rainfall
estimation using the operational algorithm from C-band polarimetric
radar. International Symposium on Weather Radar and Hydrology. 10-12
March, Grenoble, France.
Nakamura, K., Iguchi, T., 2007. Dual-wavelength radar algorithm. In:
Levizzani, V., Bauer, P., Turk, F.J. (Eds.), Measuring precipitation from
space. Springer, pp. 225–234.
Nystuen, J.A., 1999. Relative performance of automatic rain gauges under
different rainfall conditions. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 16, 1025–1043.
Park, S.-G., Maki, M., Iwanami, K., Bringi, V.N., Chandrasekar, V., 2005.
Correction of Radar Reflectivity and Differential Reflectivity for Rain
Attenuation at X Band. Part I: Theoretical and Empirical Basis. J. Atmos.
Ocean. Technol. 22, 1621–1632.
Peterson, T.C., Easterling, D.R., 1994. Creation of homogeneous composite
climatological reference series. Int. J. Climatol. 14, 671–679.
Posselt, D.J., Stephens, G.L., Miller, M., 2008. CLOUDSAT adding a new
dimension to a classical view of extratropical cyclones. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 89, 599–609.
Puri, K., Miller, M.J., 1990. Use of satellite data in the specification of
convective heating for diabatic initialization and moisture adjustment in
numerical weather prediction models. Mon. Weather Rev. 118, 67–93.
Rabier, F., Thepaut, J.-N., Courtier, P., 1998. Extended assimilation and
forecast experiments with a four-dimensional variational assimilation
system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 124, 1861–1887.
Ramanathan, A., 1987. Contribution to weather science in ancient India – VIII
Observation and measurement of meteorological parameters in ancient
India. Indian J. Hist. Sci. 22, 277–285.
Redelsperger, J.-L., Brown, P.R.A., Guichard, F., How, C., Kawasima, M., Lang, S.,
Montmerle, T., Nakamura, K., Saito, K., Seman, C., Tao, W.K., Donner, L.J., 2000.
A GCSS model intercomparison for a tropical squall line observed during toga-
coare. I: Cloud-resolving models. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 126, 823–863.
Rodell, M., 2004. NASA/NOAA's global land data assimilation system
(GLDAS): Recent results and future plans. Proc. ECMWF/ELDAS Work-
shop on Land Surface Assimilation, 8-11 November 2004, pp. 61–68.
Ryzhkov, A.V., Zrnic, D.S., 1995. Comparison of dual-polarization radar
estimators of rain. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 12, 249–256.
Ryzhkov, A.V., Giangrande, S.E., Schuur, T.J., 2005. Rainfall estimation with a
polarimetric prototype of WSR-88D. J. Appl. Meteorol. 44, 502–515.
Sachidananda, M., Zrnic, D.S., 1987. Rain rate estimates from differential
polarization measurements. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 4, 588–598.
Seliga, T.A., Bringi, V.N., 1978. Differential reflectivity and differential phase
shift: Applications in radar meteorology. Radio Sci. 13, 271–275.
Seliga, T.A., Bringi, V.N., 1976. Potential use of radar differential
reflectivity measurements at orthogonal polarizations for measuring
precipitation. J. Appl. Meteorol. 15, 69–76.
Sevruk, B., 1996. Adjustment of tipping-bucket precipitation gauge measure-
ments. Atmos. Res. 42, 237–246.
Sheppard, B.E., Joe, P.I., 1994. Comparison of Raindrop Size Distribution
Measurements by a Joss-Waldvogel Disdrometer, a PMS 2DG Spectrom-
eter, and a POSS Doppler Radar. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 11, 874–887.
Skofronick-Jackson, G.M., Kim, M.-J., Weinman, J.A., Chang, D.-E., 2004. A
physical model to determine snowfall over land by microwave
radiometry. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 42, 1047–1058.
Smith, E.A., Mugnai, A., Cooper, H.J., Tripoli, G.J., Xiang, X., 1992. Foundations
for statistical-physical precipitation retrieval from passive microwave
satellite measurements. Part I: Brightness-temperature properties of a
time-dependent cloud-radiation model. J. Appl. Meteorol. 31, 506–531.
Smith, J.A., Seo, D.-J., Baeck, M.L., Hudlow, M.D., 1996. An Intercomparison
Study of NEXRAD Precipitation Estimates. Water Resour. Res. 32,
2035–2045.
Smith, E., Bauer, P., Marzano, F.S., Kummerow, C.D., McKague, D., Mugnai, A.,
Panegrossi, G., 2002. Intercomparison of microwave radiative transfer models
for precipitating clouds. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 40, 541–549.
Staelin, D.H., Chen, F.W., 2000. Precipitation observations near 54 and
183 GHz using the NOAA-15 satellite. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
38, 2322–2332.
Stephens, G.L., Kummerow, C.D., 2007. The remote sensing of clouds and
precipitation from space: A review. J. Atmos. Sci. 64, 3742–3765.
Stephens, G.L., Vane, D.G., Boain, R.J., Mace, G.G., Sassen, K., Wang, Z.,
Illingworth, A.J., O'Connor, E.J., Rossow, W.B., Durden, S.L., Miller, S.D.,
Austin, R.T., Benedetti, A., Mitrescu, C., Team, T.C.S., 2002. The CloudSat
mission and the A-Train- A new dimension of space-based observations
of clouds and precipitation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1771–1790.
 S. Michaelides et al. / Atmospheric Research 94 (2009) 512–533
Strangeways, I., 2006. Precipitation: Theory, Measurements and Distribution.
Cambridge University Press. 300 pp.
Sun, J., Wilson, J.W., 2003. The assimilation of radar data for weather prediction.
Radar and Atmospheric Science: A collection of essays in honor of David
Atlas. : Meteor. Monogr. No. 52. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 175 pp.
Surussavadee, C., Staelin, D.H., 2008a. Global millimeter-wave precipitation
retrievals trained with a cloud-resolving numerical weather prediction
model, Part I: Retrieval design. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 46,
99–108.
Surussavadee, C., Staelin, D.H., 2008b. Global millimeter-wave precipitation
retrievals trained with a cloud-resolving numerical weather prediction
model, Part II: Performance evaluation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
46, 109–118.
Testud, J., Le Bouar, E., Obligis, E., Ali-Mehenni, M., 2000. The rain profiling
algorithm applied to polarimetric weather radar. J. Atmos. Ocean.
Technol. 17, 332–356.
Thielen, J., Bartholmes, J., Ramos, M.-H., De Roo, A., 2008. The European Flood
Alert System- part 1: Concept and development. Hydrol. Earth Sys. Disc.
5, 257–287.
Tokay, A., Kruger, A., Krajewski, W.F., 2001. Comparison of Drop Size
Distribution Measurements by Impact and Optical Disdrometers. J. Appl.
Meteorol. 40, 2083–2097.
Treadon, R.E., 1997. Assimilation of satellite derived precipitation with the
NCAP GDAS. Ph.D. dissertation, The Florida State University, 348 pp.
Tsuyuki, T., Koizumi, K., Ishikawa, Y., 2002. The JMA mesoscale 4D-Var system
and assimilation of precipitation and moisture data. Proc. ECMWF/GEWEX
Workshop on Humidity Analysis, 8-11 July 2002, pp. 59–67.
Turk, F.J., Rohaly, G.D., Hawkins, J., Smith, E.A., Marzano, F.S., Mugnai, A.,
Levizzani, V., 2000. Meteorological applications of precipitation estima-
tion from combined SSM/I, TRMM and infrared geostationary satellite
data. In: Pampaloni, P.P., Paloscia, S. (Eds.), Microwave radiometry and
remote sensing of the earth's surface and atmosphere: VSP Int. Sci. Publ. ,
pp. 353–363.
Twomey, S., 1977. Introduction to the mathematics of inversion in remote
sensing and indirect measurements. Elsevier Scientific Publishing. 243 pp.
Upton, G.J.J., Rahimi, A.R., 2003. On-line detection of errors in tipping-bucket
rain gauges. J. Hydrol. 278, 197–212.
Vila, D., Ferraro, R., Joyce, R., 2007. Evaluation and improvement of AMSU
precipitation retrievals. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D20119. doi:10.1029/
2007JD008617.
533
Vivekanandan, J., Zhang, G., Brandes, E., 2004. Polarimetric Radar Estimators
Based on a Constrained Gamma Drop Size Distribution Model. J. Appl.
Meteorol. 43, 217–230.
Vukicevic, T., Posselt, D., 2008. Analysis of the impact of model nonlinearities
in inverse problem solving. J. Atmos. Sci. 65, 2803–2823.
Vukicevic, T., Greenwald, T.J., Zupanski, M., Zupanski, D., Vonder Haar, T.,
Jones, A.S., 2004. Mesoscale cloud state estimation from visible and
infrared satellite radiances. Mon. Weather Rev. 132, 3066–3077.
Vulpiani, G., Marzano, F.S., Chandrasekar, V., Lim, S., 2005. Constrained
iterative technique with embedded neural network for dual-polarization
radar correction of rain path attenuation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote.
Sens. 43, 2305–2314.
Wang, P.K., Zhang, D., 1988. An introduction to some historical governmental
weather records of China. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 69, 753–758.
Willmott, C.J., Rowe, C.M., Philpot, W.D., 1985. Small-scale climate maps: a
sensitivity analysis of some common assumptions associated with grid-
point interpolation and contouring. Am. Cartogr. 12, 5–16.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), 1973. Annotated Bibliography
on Precipitation Measurement Instruments. WMO-No. 343, Geneva,
Switzerland, 278 pp.
Yang, D., Kane, D.L., Hinzman, L.D., Goodison, B.E., Mecalfe, J.R., Louie, P.Y.T.,
Leavesley, G.H., Emerson, D.G., Hanson, C.L., 2000. An evaluation of the
Wyoming gauge system for snowfall measurement. Water Resour. Res.
36, 2665–2677.
Young, C.B., Nelson, B.R., Bradley, A.A., Smith, J.A., Peters-Lidard, C.D., Kruger,
A., Baeck, M.L., 1999. An evaluation of NEXRAD precipitation estimates in
complex terrain. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos. 104, 19691–19703.
Young, C.B., Bradley, A.A., Krajewski, W.F., Kruger, A., Morrissey, M.L., 2000.
Evaluating NEXRAD multisensor precipitation estimates for operational
hydrologic forecasting. J. Hydrometeorol. 1, 241–254.
Zhang, G., Vivekanandan, J., Brandes, E., 2001. A method for estimating rain
rate and drop size distribution from polarimetric radar measurements.
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 39, 830–841.
Zou, X., Kuo, Y.H., 1996. Rainfall assimilation through an optimal control of
initial and boundary conditions in a limited-area mesoscale model. Mon.
Weather Rev. 124, 2859–2882.
Zrnic, D., Ryzhkov, A.V., 1999. Polarimetry for Weather Surveillance Radars.
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 80, 389–406.
Zupanski, D., Mesinger, F., 1995. Four-dimensional variational assimilation of
precipitation data. Mon. Weather Rev. 123, 1112–1127.