DECEMBER 2002 GERMANN AND ZAWADZKI 2859

Scale-Dependence of the Predictability of Precipitation from Continental Radar Images.

Part I: Description of the Methodology
URS GERMANN AND ISZTAR ZAWADZKI
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, and
J. S. Marshall Weather Radar Observatory, Sainte Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada

(Manuscript received 28 November 2001, in final form 14 March 2002)

ABSTRACT
The lifetime of precipitation patterns in Eulerian and Lagrangian space derived from continental-scale radar
images is used as a measure of predictability. A three-step procedure is proposed. First, the motion field of
precipitation is determined by variational radar echo tracking. Second, radar reflectivity is advected by means
of a modified semi-Lagrangian advection scheme assuming stationary motion. Third, the Eulerian and Lagrangian
persistence forecasts are compared to observations to calculate the lifetime and other measures of predictability.
The procedure is repeated with images that have been decomposed according to scales to describe the scale-
dependence of predictability.
The analysis has a threefold application: (i) determine the scale-dependence of predictability, (ii) set a standard
against which the skill for quantitative precipitation forecasting by numerical modeling can be evaluated, and
(iii) extend nowcasting by optimal extrapolation of radar precipitation patterns. The methodology can be applied
to other field variables such as brightness temperatures of weather satellites imagery.

1. Introduction: Predictability of precipitation

The predictability of precipitation, in the sense of a
EE V
Ĉ(t 0 1 t , x)C(t 0 1 t , x) dx
c(t ) 5

[EE EE
nonlinear response and sensitivity to small perturbations

]
0.5
in initial and boundary conditions in fluid dynamics, is Ĉ(t 0 1 t , x) dx
2
C(t 0 1 t , x) dx
2
a complex problem. It is a fundamental and intrinsic V V
property of nonlinear systems, but in practice it will
depend as well on the particular forecasting model. (2)
Thus, as pointed out by Lorenz (1973), predictability is
and integrating over t
a concept better taken in a relative sense—relative to a
method of forecasting.
One of the simplest forecasting methods is using cli-
matological values such as the arithmetic mean, the me-
L5 E0
`

c(t ) dt (3)

dian, or the most likely value. For the arithmetic mean,

the predictability is given by the variance, and is in-
dependent of forecast time.
A second approach is keeping the most recent ob-
servation frozen (Eulerian persistence)
Ĉ(t 0 1 t, x) 5 C(t 0 , x), (1)
where C is the observed precipitation field, t 0 is the
start time of the forecast, t is the lead time, and Ĉ(t 0
1 t, x) is the forecasted rate at time t 0 1 t and position
x. By correlating the forecast with observations in the
domain V,
Corresponding author address: Dr. Urs Germann, Atmospheric and
Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke W., Montreal,
QC, H3A 2K6, Canada.
E-mail: urs@zephyr.meteo.mcgill.ca
we get the lifetime (or decorrelation time) L. This def-
inition of correlation functions without subtraction of
the mean [Eq. (2)] has been introduced by Zawadzki
(1973). If c(t) follows an exponential law, L is equal
to the time constant in the exponent, and corresponds
to the time when the correlation falls below 1/e 5 0.37.
The decorrelation time as defined in Eq. (3) is a practical
measure of the predictability of precipitation patterns.
Equation (1) can be expressed in differential form
using the two-dimensional conservation equation of C,
written as follows
dC ]C ]uC ]y C
5 1 1 (4)
dt ]t ]x ]y
Neglecting the compressibility term C(]u/]x 1 ]y /]y)
we get

q 2002 American Meteorological Society

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC

2860 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW
dC ]C ]C ]C
5 1u 1y . (5)
dt ]t ]x ]y
In the case of Eulerian persistence, the local rate of
change ]C/]t is set to zero.
A third approach is setting the source-sink term to
zero
]C ]C ]C
05 1u 1y (6)
]t ]x ]y
and advecting C following the motion of precipitation
parcels (Lagrangian persistence)
Ĉ(t 0 1 t, x) 5 C(t 0 , x 2 a), (7)
where a is the displacement vector. Analogously to the
previous case, we can calculate the decorrelation time
and thus get another measure of predictability, namely
the predictability obtained by Lagrangian persistence.
There are several ways of defining the Lagrangian per-
sistence (section 4).
As a refinement of Lagrangian persistence, we first
introduce a source-sink term SC 5 dC/dt, which allows
for growth and dissipation of precipitation, and second
replace C on the right-hand side of Eq. (7) by C̃
ˆ 0 1 t , x) 5 C(t
˜ 0 , x 2 a) 1 SC (t 0 , x 2 a)
C(t (8)
Here, C̃ is obtained from C by any type of transfor-
mation, such as spectral filtering or averaging in time
and/or space. Equation (8) is the general equation of the
Lagrangian forecast procedures used in this paper.
A practical aspect of Lagrangian persistence is in
nowcasting. Nowcasting precipitation has historically
been based on the advection of ‘‘frozen’’ radar reflec-
tivity fields. Operational applications began in 1976
when the McGill Weather Radar Observatory started
sending 1–6-h rainfall forecasts to the local weather
office (Bellon and Austin 1978). Attempts at including
growth and dissipation failed to improve the skill of the
forecast. A recent refinement has been presented in Bel-
lon and Zawadzki (1994). They show that eliminating
the small-scale perishable information by means of spa-
tial averaging leads to a consistent reduction of the root-
mean-square error of the forecast. A power law relates
the length scale of the spatial filter to the forecast time.
A similar technique proposed by Seed and Keenan
(2001) uses a Fourier-notch-filter for scale decompo-
sition, and advects each scale with its own decorrelation
time. An attempt to relate the Lagrangian persistence of
rainfall patterns to larger-scale meteorological param-
eters such as convective available potential energy
(CAPE) or storm-relative helicity was done in Zawadzki
et al. (1994). A limiting factor in the analysis was the
maximum range properly sampled by a single radar. In
the United Kingdom, a high correlation was found be-
tween Lagrangian persistence and storm-relative helic-
ity. Storm-relative helicity introduced by Lilly (1986)
provides, therefore, a guide to the forecaster as to what
VOLUME 130
lead time advection forecasts are useful (Pierce et al.
2000).
So far, precipitation nowcasting by radar was com-
monly based on data of one single radar. This puts an
upper limit to the scales of observations, and, conse-
quently, also to the timescale over which the forecast
is useful. The lead times of useful forecasts reported in
the literature are usually less than 2 h often less than 1
h (Mecklenburg et al. 2000). The recent development
of radar networks covering entire continents opens a
new opportunity. Simple visual observations of radar
composite patterns suggest that a certain degree of per-
sistence is present on timescales of many hours, and in
some cases even days. Carbone et al. (2002) observed
coherent rainfall events, of order 1000 km in zonal span
and 1-day in duration, occurring nearly one per day.
Numerical models are not going to replace precipitation
nowcasting by advection of radar rainfall fields unless
there is a breakthrough in appropriately measuring and
assimilating into the model the current state of the at-
mosphere.
The objective of this paper is to explore the use of
continental-scale radar composite images to determine
the predictability of precipitation. As a measure of pre-
dictability we take Eulerian and Lagrangian decorrela-
tion times (Zawadzki et al. 1994). In its most simplified
version, the proposed procedure has three steps: vari-
ational echo tracking, advection of radar reflectivity, and
correlation of the forecast with the observation. This
paper gives a detailed description of the methodology,
and discusses first results.
Spectral and spatial filters are needed to decompose
precipitation patterns according to scales. Decomposi-
tion according to scales is done for two reasons: First,
Bellon and Zawadzki (1994) have shown that applying
a spatial filter to the forecast image improves the root-
mean-square error; increasing smoothing windows for
increasing lead times prevents structures from being re-
produced beyond their lifetime. Second, by calculating
the correlation between forecast and observation as a
function of scale, we can determine the scale-depen-
dence of predictability.
An example of Eulerian and Lagrangian persistence
is given in Fig. 1. It shows the correlation between the
true observed precipitation field and Eulerian and La-
grangian forecasts for lead times up to 8 h. Spatial res-
olution of the echo field is 4 km, as further discussed
in section 2b. A description of the weather situation and
the motion field is given later. For the selected forecast
run, the decorrelation time of Lagrangian persistence is
approximately 1.8 times that of Eulerian persistence.
Looking at large-scale features with wavelengths of 64
km and more, and thus ignoring all the scales smaller
than mesobeta, further extends the range of predict-
ability by about 1 h.
Finally the analysis will have a threefold application:
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
DECEMBER 2002 GERMANN AND ZAWADZKI
FIG. 1. Correlation as defined in Eq. (2) between forecast and
observation for Eulerian persistence (dotted), Lagrangian persistence
(solid), and for Lagrangian persistence of low-pass filtered images
with cutoff wavelength of 64 km (dashed). Data is from one 8-h
forecast, starting at 1100 UTC 30 Jul 1998. The considered domain
has a side length of 2720 km. The precipitation area is about 6 3
10 5 km 2 . The triangle marks the lifetime L of the solid curve cal-
culated with Eq. (3).
1) Determine the predictability of precipitation as a
function of scales.
2) Set a standard against which the skill for quantitative
precipitation forecasting (QPF) by numerical mod-
eling can be evaluated.
3) Serve as a basis for extended nowcasting of precip-
itation by optimal extrapolation of past observations.
2. Setup of the experiment
a. Forecast mode
Strictly speaking, Lagrangian space is defined by the
trajectories of the precipitation parcels, and Lagrangian
decorrelation only depends on the rate of growth and
dissipation (source-sink term) of the moving parcel. Our
case is a bit different, because we are looking at pre-
dictability relative to a forecast method. The exact tra-
jectory of a precipitation parcel is unknown at the mo-
ment the forecast is issued, but is estimated from past
observations in the assimilation window. With this set-
up, illustrated in Fig. 2 (and hereafter referred to as
forecast mode), precipitation decorrelates more rapidly
than it does in the strict Lagrangian space following the
true trajectories. The difference in decorrelation times
is due to the error of the estimated trajectories (e.g.,
nonstationarity of the echo motion field).
b. Data
The U.S. national radar composites used in this anal-
ysis are a WSI Corporation NOWradTM product, which
benefits from three stages of quality control. The first
2861
FIG. 2. Setup of forecast mode. In this paper the assimilation win-
dow and the forecast period are fixed to 1 and 8 h, respectively, and
time step is 15 min.
two stages are automated and the third is manual in-
tervention. As a result, most of the residual clutter and
signals from anomalous propagation are removed. The
resolution of the composite images is 15 min in time,
2 km in space, and 5 dBZ in reflectivity. The spatial
coverage extends from 208 to 538N and from 1308 to
608W. Reflectivity corresponds to the vertical maximum
value measured by any Weather Surveillance Radar-
1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) radar in the given space–time
frame of one pixel. The accuracy in terms of rainfall
rates is not comparable to that of rainfall maps based
on sophisticated algorithms that include corrections for
the vertical profile of reflectivity, visibility, attenuation,
Z–R variations and others. The images certainly suffer
from brightband contamination, different calibration,
and lack of visibility, which reduces the quality in terms
of quantitative rainfall estimates. But the spatial cov-
erage of the composites is unique, and makes the prod-
uct suitable to analyze the scale-dependence of pre-
dictability up to the continental scale, as outlined earlier.
For the analysis presented in this paper, the spatial
resolution has been reduced to 4 km. A lower threshold
of 10 dBZ (0.1 mm h 21 ) is used. Measurements below
this value are considered as ‘‘no rain.’’
c. Four events
To illustrate and test the individual steps of the pre-
sented methodology, four precipitation events in a sub-
domain of 2720 km 3 2720 km are selected. Figure 3
depicts one representative image of each system, and
Table 1 lists the duration, the spatial extent, and two
summary statistics of the intensity distribution.
The only criteria for selecting the events are a min-
imum extent of about 3 3 10 5 km 2 and sufficient data
quality. The minimum extent criterion makes sure that
the correlation function c(t), the lifetime L, and other
scores are based on a sufficiently large sample, and thus
have meteorological meaning. Echo tracking and ad-
vection of rainfall patterns can be done with much small-
er systems, but the evaluation of the forecasts may give
noisy results because a sample size is too small. To
obtain a meaningful estimate of the Lagrangian persis-
tence of small-scale systems, we would have to pool
several events of this type before calculating lifetimes.
Occasionally the composites contain strong residual
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
2862 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 130

FIG. 3. The four precipitation events, used in this study. Indicated is the area with precipitation rates
higher than 0.1 mm h 21 (10 dBZ ). Time is in UTC.

clutter, or large data voids because of missing radars. the shape of the system changes rapidly. At a later point
Such situations are easily detected by visual inspection in this paper we will see that the corresponding Eulerian
of animated images. and Lagrangian decorrelation times are relatively small.
The last column of Table 1 is a measure of the im- In the 1998 case, the rates .10 mm h 21 make up 6.4%
portance of convection. In the 1999 case, 12% of the of the precipitation area. This is still a considerable
raining area has rainfall rates higher than 10 mm h 21 . fraction, but throughout the entire period of 16 h, the
Precipitation is predominantly formed in convective system is more coherent, and the cells are embedded in
cells, the temporal evolution is fast (dC/dt high), and a larger area of weak to moderate rates. Not surprisingly,
we will find longer persistence for this event than for
TABLE 1. Statistics of the four precipitation events used in this
the 1999 event. The echo motion field of both the 2001
study. The extent is defined as the area with a precipitation rate larger and the 1999 case exhibits rotation, while the motion
than 0.1 mm h21 (10 dBZ). The last two columns indicate the fraction fields of the other two cases are almost free from ro-
of that area with rates larger than 1 mm h21 (25 dBZ) and 10 mm tation.
h21 (40 dBZ), respectively. The values are averages over the entire
period. The fractional coverage of rainfall rates greater than 10 mm
h21 over the 16-h duration of the 1998 storm was, for instance, 6.4%.
d. Summary of the procedure
Start Duration Extent .1 mm .10 mm
Date (UTC) (h) (10 5 km 2 ) h21 (%) h21 (%)
30 Jul 1998 0400 16 6.0 42 6.4 1) Determine the motion field by variational echo track-
16 May 2000 0000 22 3.9 34 2.0 ing in the assimilation window (section 3).
25 May 2001 0400 20 6.1 33 2.6 2) Advect the radar reflectivity using a modified semi-
1 Jun 1999 1600 25 3.6 47 12
Lagrangian backward scheme (section 4).

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC

DECEMBER 2002 GERMANN AND ZAWADZKI
3) Compare the forecast and observation and calculate
the correlation and skill scores (section 6a).
4) Repeat steps 1 to 3 with spectral-filtered images to
determine the scale-dependence of predictability
(section 6b).
3. Variational echo tracking
The echo motion field is estimated by variational echo
tracking (VET), first presented by Laroche and Zawa-
dzki (1994, 1995). The technique was originally de-
veloped to retrieve the three-dimensional wind field
from single-Doppler clear-air echoes. We adapted it to
continental-scale radar composite images of precipita-
tion fields with no Doppler information. The spatial var-
iation of the error structure of the radar data is taken
into account by means of a weighting vector. Regions
with frequent clutter or poor visibility—for instance, in
the mountains—are given small weights.
A cost function with two constraints is minimized
JVET (u) 5 JC 1 J 2
The first constraint, JC , is the sum of squares of residuals
of the conservation equation [Eq. (6)], and is calculated
with an upstream semi-Lagrangian scheme
JC 5 EE V
b(x)[C(t 0 , x)
2 C(t 0 2 Dt, x 2 uDt)] 2 dx dy, (10)
where b (x) is the weighting vector representing the data
quality. The second term of Eq. (9), J 2 , is a smoothness-
penalty function (Wahba and Wendelberger 1980)
EE 1
2 1 2 1 2 1 2
]2u ]2u ]2u
2 2
J2 5 g 1 12
V
]x 2 ]y 2 ]x]y
1 2 1 2
] 2y ] 2y
2 2
1 12 dx dy,
]y 2 ]x]y
where g is a constant weight, and u and y are the x-
and y-component of u, respectively. All the control var-
iables (u and y of the domain) are retrieved simulta-
neously in one global minimization. Several techniques
can be found in the literature to minimize large-scale
nonlinear cost functions (Navon and Leger 1987). In
VET, we use the conjugate-gradient algorithm to deter-
mine the search direction and the step length.
Figure 4 shows an example of the echo motion field
obtained by VET using three radar images of a 1-h
assimilation window. The lower two plots are combined
and enlarged in Fig. 5. An example of a second case is
given in Fig. 6.
The retrieved vector field is most reliable in the re-
gions of precipitation echoes, whereas far away from
any precipitation area the vectors must be interpreted
with care. They are either extrapolated values, or result
from tracking a few isolated cluttered pixels.
2863
Experiments have shown that the vector field can be
accurately retrieved if a ‘‘close’’ first guess of the con-
trol variables is available. To obtain a first guess, Lar-
oche and Zawadzki (1994) developed a scaling-guess
procedure, in which the field is iteratively retrieved with
increasing grid resolution. This strongly reduces the risk
that the minimization converges towards secondary
minima. Figure 7 illustrates the scaling guess of the
retrieval shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The left-most plot
shows a single motion vector for the whole domain.
This vector can be obtained either by means of the con-
jugate-gradient algorithm as is done for the other scales,
or by a simple search over a set of predefined vectors.
In an operational context the scaling-guess procedure
can be replaced by using as a first guess the latest motion
field, or the 700-hPa winds from numerical models. This
will reduce the processing time of the constrained non-
linear minimization by at least one order of magnitude.
In a first step the weighting vector b (x) is set to 1
for the whole domain. Data quality is thus assumed to
be constant, and all pixels are given the same weight.
(9)
Data of bad quality, such as partially blocked rays or
isolated cluttered pixels, cause little harm in the retrieval
of the motion field, as long as their spatial extent is
small. First, the grid scale of the motion field is between
one and two orders of magnitude larger than the pixel
resolution of the radar image (here, 104 km compared
to 4 km). Second, the smoothing constraint does not
permit strong discontinuities between close vectors,
which further reduces the influence of small regions of
bad data.
A next step is to determine b (x) by examining the
spatial distribution of data quality of the U.S. radar com-
posites. This is particularly important if the domain of
] 2y
2 2
1 the analysis is extended to regions with lower data qual-
]x 2 ity and more data voids, such as over the Rocky Moun-
tains.
The scale of the features to be tracked is controlled
(11) by the scaling-guess procedure and the smoothing con-
straint. Here, the scale of the motion field is chosen
small enough to allow for large-scale rotation, defor-
mation, and differential motion between different sys-
tems. But it is large enough to avoid tracking the fast,
perishable convective scales. A smaller scale may be
suitable for nowcasts of a few 10s of minutes.
Once the motion field is determined, it is taken un-
changed during the entire forecast period (Fig. 2). That
is, rainfall patterns are advected assuming stationary
motion. In a forecast mode the motion field is updated
every hour.
4. Advection of radar reflectivity
We tested several advection schemes and finally end-
ed up with a modified version of the semi-Lagrangian
scheme presented by Sawyer (1963) and further devel-
oped by Robert (1981). Figure 8 illustrates the displace-
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
2864 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 130

FIG. 4. Three radar composite images and corresponding echo motion field obtained by variational echo
tracking (VET). Time step is 30 min, the last image is for 0800 UTC 25 May 2001. Indicated is the area
with precipitation rates larger than 0.1 mm h 21 (10 dBZ ). For better legibility only one gray shade is shown,
whereas echo tracking is done with the full range of dBZ values. The vectors are most reliable in regions
with precipitation echoes (black arrows), whereas far away from any precipitation they must be interpreted
with care (light arrows). For enlargement see Fig. 5.

ment vectors of four schemes: two backward schemes
and two forward schemes.
a. Backward versus forward
In a forward scheme we start at grid point P and
advect the parcel downstream up to point Q. Thus, ‘‘for-
ward’’ means forward in time and downstream in space.
Whereas in a backward scheme, we move upstream and
determine the origin O of a parcel that would end up
at grid point P. Normally, neither O nor Q exactly co-
incide with a grid point. Therefore, in a forward scheme
the advected value is redistributed to the neighbouring
grid points, while in a backward scheme interpolation
is required to determine the value at point O. Both re-
distribution and interpolation result in a loss of power
at small scales, as is evidenced in the power spectra
discussed in section 4c.
Strictly speaking, only forward schemes are mass
conservative, which means that the mean of the ad-
vected field is conserved. In practice, the divergence of
the echo motion field is weak, and also backward
schemes are, to a first approximation, mass conserva-
tive.
The problem of forward schemes is choosing the op-
timum radius of influence when redistributing (spread-
ing) the advected value to the neighbouring grid points.
The radius must be large enough to smooth ripples
caused by divergence, but small enough to limit the loss
of power at small scales.
b. Constant vector versus semi-Lagrangian
The constant-vector scheme is straightforward: the
displacement vector a of Eq. (8) is simply
a 5 t u(t 0 , x P ), (12)

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC

DECEMBER 2002 GERMANN AND ZAWADZKI
FIG. 5. Enlargement of Fig. 4: Radar composite image and cor-
responding echo motion field of 0800 UTC 25 May 2001. Levels of
gray shading correspond to reflectivity between 10–25 dBZ, 25–40
dBZ, and larger than 40 dBZ, respectively. To improve legibility the
radar pattern has been low-pass filtered with a cutoff wavelength of
32 km.
where u(t 0 , x P ) is the echo motion at the grid point P.
The constant-vector approach uses, for each grid point,
one constant translation vector and does not allow for
rotation. To overcome this drawback we can use a semi-
Lagrangian scheme: The advection is divided up into N
steps of length Dt with NDt 5 t, and for each time step
a is iteratively determined as follows:
1 2
a a 6-h forecast obtained by means of the conventional
a 5 Dt u t 0 , x 2 (13)
2
starting with a 5 0. The final displacement vector is
the vectorial sum of the N vectors of the individual time
steps. Thus, in the semi-Lagrangian scheme we deter-
mine the trajectory of a parcel by following the stream-
lines either upstream or downstream assuming station-
arity, that is u(t, x) 5 u(t 0 , x). For the echo motion
fields obtained by VET (section 3), Eq. (13) converges
rapidly and the iteration can be aborted after 2 or 3
loops. Figure 8 shows the vectors for semi-Lagrangian
forward (slf ), semi-Lagrangian backward (slb), con-
stant-vector forward (cvf ), and constant-vector back-
ward (cvb). If rotation is not negligible, as on synoptic
scales, the semi-Lagrangian approach is obviously to be
preferred. Figure 9 shows a forecast obtained with a
semi-Lagrangian scheme for a rotating system. It qual-
itatively shows that the scheme is able to conserve the
shape of the precipitation system even in the presence
of strong rotation.
2865
c. Advection schemes and numerical diffusion
In all of the schemes discussed previously precipi-
tation must be either interpolated from or redistributed
to neighboring grid points. For forward schemes we use
Gaussian spreading with a radius of influence that is
proportional to the length of the displacement vector.
Whereas in the backward schemes a four-point bilinear,
or a 16-point cubic, interpolation is applied.
Both spreading and interpolation result in the deg-
radation or loss of small-scale features, known as im-
plicit numerical diffusion or false dissipation. Simula-
tions of mass conservation, numerical diffusion, dis-
persion, and monotonicity of commonly used advection
schemes can be found in Ostiguy and Laprise (1990).
Numerical diffusion changes the power spectrum of the
precipitation field (Fig. 10) in an uncontrollable way,
and thus interferes with one of the objectives of the
project, which is to determine the scale-dependence of
predictability. For this reason, we have to keep numer-
ical diffusion as small as possible. One way to com-
pletely avoid this problem is to use one single translation
vector for the entire domain. Certainly, this way we
preserve all the small scales of the precipitation field
itself, and the forecast will have identically the same
power spectrum as the field at time t 0 . But by ignoring
the small scales of the motion field, it again prohibits
analysis of the predictability of small-scale precipitation
patterns. That is, the small scales artificially decorrelate
faster than they would in a real Lagrangian space, be-
cause they are advected to the wrong place. The solution
to this dilemma is a modified version of the semi-La-
grangian backward scheme. In the conventional semi-
Lagrangian scheme interpolation is done for each time
step Dt. The result is a serious loss of small-scale power,
which increases with the number of time steps. The
lowest curve of Fig. 10 shows the power spectrum of
semi-Lagrangian scheme with a time step Dt of 15 min
and bilinear interpolation. The third-lowest spectrum is
from the same scheme but with cubic interpolation. In
our context, we can always reduce the number of in-
terpolations to one, independently of the number of time
steps, by following the streamlines back to the origin
of the parcel by means of Eq. (13), and then interpolate
the precipitation rate once. Since both the constant-vec-
tor backward bilinear and the modified semi-Lagrangian
backward bilinear scheme use one interpolation, they
have almost identical power spectra. Numerical diffu-
sion can be further reduced by replacing the bilinear
with a cubic interpolation.
We decided to use the modified semi-Lagrangian
backward scheme (semi-Lagrangian IO, ‘‘IO’’ stands for
interpolate once) because first, it allows for rotation,
second, it is almost conservative in mass, and third, it
limits the loss of power at small scales that results from
interpolation. An example of a forecast based on the
semi-Lagrangian IO scheme is given in Fig. 9.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
2866 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW
FIG. 6. Same as Fig. 4 except for 1100 UTC 30 July 1998.
d. Source-sink term
A source-sink term is incorporated in the forecasting
procedure to allow for growth and dissipation of pre-
cipitation. One way to estimate this term is determining
in the assimilation window the residuals of the conser-
vation equation by means of an upstream semi-Lagrang-
ian scheme. It thus corresponds to the residuals that are
minimized with the first constraint JC of the cost func-
tion of VET (section 3). This improves the forecast if
growth and dissipation, following a precipitation parcel
(dC/dt), exhibit a certain degree of persistence, as can
be observed on synoptic scales.
In particular for convection at the storm-scale, how-
ever, the persistence of the total derivative is low, and
other factors such as daytime and synoptic forcing dom-
inate over advection. Tsonis and Austin (1981) have
shown that extrapolating changes in intensity and size
yield little if any improvement at the storm scale. Thus,
recent techniques developed for nowcasting the initia-
tion and dissipation of intense convection, combine ad-
vection of radar echoes with external information ac-
counting for daytime and synoptic forcing (Wilson et
VOLUME 130
al. 1998; Pierce et al. 2000). The role of daytime forcing
becomes evident when looking at the frequency of thun-
derstorms versus daytime. Based on U.S. national radar
composites, Carbone et al. (2002) found diurnal cycles
over and near the eastern and western cordillera, and
semidiurnal cycles between the cordillera.
5. Use of logarithmic reflectivity as the prognostic
variable
So far we referred to C as the precipitation field with-
out having specified exactly which variable we are look-
ing at. There was no need to do so up to this point,
because the proposed methodology can be applied to
assess the predictability of virtually any field variable,
provided that advection is a reasonable forecasting
method for that variable. Examples of such variables
are the rainfall rate, precipitation liquid water, cloud
liquid water, water vapor, or ‘‘dry’’ quantities such as
aerosol concentrations, or, if radiative forcing is sub-
tracted, also air temperature.
From the instrumental point of view we have to
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
DECEMBER 2002 GERMANN AND ZAWADZKI
FIG. 7. Scaling-guess procedure: The echo motion field is retrieved in three runs with increasing resolution.
The retrieval starts with (left) a uniform field, which is used as a first guess to retrieve (middle) the field
on a 5 3 5 grid, which in turn is the first guess of (right) the final minimization with a 25 3 25 grid.
choose a variable that can be measured over a large
domain at a sufficiently high temporal and spatial res-
olution, like radar reflectivity or brightness temperature
derived from satellite data.
Weather radars are a unique source of observations
to investigate the predictability of precipitation. Yet, we
have to decide whether to use logarithmic reflectivity
(dBZ), or any derived quantity like linear precipitation
rates (mm h 21 ), or precipitation liquid water (kg m 23 ).
In some steps of the proposed chain of techniques, it
does not matter what variable we are using (for instance
when calculating skill scores like the false-alarm rate),
whereas in other steps it does (e.g., when calculating
JC in VET, when interpolating in the advection scheme,
FIG. 8. Displacement vectors of four advection schemes: semi-
Lagrangian forward (slf ), semi-Lagrangian backward (slb), constant-
vector forward (cvf ), and constant-vector backward (cvb). P is the
grid point of a parcel for which one wants to find out where it comes
from (backward), or where it goes (forward).
2867
or when determining the correlation between the fore-
cast and the observation).
For several reasons we decided to use logarithmic
radar reflectivity (dBZ) throughout the analysis: First,
the strength of the continental radar composites is its
ability to give an overall view of the precipitation pat-
tern up to the synoptic scale in terms of multiplicative
rainfall rates (using classes such as 1–2 mm h 21 , 2–4
mm h 21 , etc.), rather than to provide precise measure-
ments of the rainfall amounts (section 2b). In the linear
domain too much attention is paid to the upper end of
intensities (strong rainfall rates), which is affected by
brightband contamination and remaining ground clutter.
In the logarithmic domain, on the other hand, equal
weights are given to the intervals 0.1–1 mm h 21 , 1–10
mm h 21 , and 10–100 mm h 21 . Consequently, logarith-
mic reflectivity better matches with the information con-
tent and quality of the continental radar composites.
Second, relative errors are often of more importance
than absolute errors. An error, for instance, of 5 mm
h 21 between a predicted value of 6 mm h 21 and an
observed rate of 1 mm h 21 is large. And yet the same
absolute error becomes almost negligible in a cell of
heavy precipitation with rates above 50 mm h 21 . One
way to look at relative errors is to work in the loga-
rithmic domain.
Third, reflectivity is the quantity directly measured
by the radar.
6. Results
a. Predictability of precipitation
Figure 1 depicts the correlation, as defined in Eq. (2),
between forecast and observation for one single 9-h
period (1-h assimilation window plus 8-h forecast). In
order to obtain a better estimate of Lagrangian persis-
tence we average the correlation of several 9-h periods
by extending the domain V of Eq. (2) and integrating
over # # #V . . . dx dt 0 . Figure 11 shows the Lagrangian
and Eulerian persistence of four events, each lasting
between 16 and 25 h. In the 25-h period, for instance,
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
2868 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW VOLUME 130

FIG. 9. Observation and forecast obtained by semi-Lagrangian advection for lead times of 1, 2, and 3 h. Depicted are the regions with
reflectivity larger than 10 dBZ (0.1 mm h 21 ). The forecast starts at 0800 UTC 25 May 2001 (Fig. 5). For better legibility only one gray
shade is shown, whereas advection of patterns and evaluation of the forecast is done with the full range of values.

we can fit 17 9-h periods, when issuing one forecast per b)(a 1 c)/(a 1 b 1 c 1 d). We can thus define the
hour. To a first approximation, Eulerian persistence de- skill scores as follows:
correlates twice as fast as Lagrangian persistence. In POD 5 a/(a 1 b) (14)
other words, by advecting echoes following a stationary
motion field the forecast time for a given level of con- FAR 5 c/(a 1 c) (15)
fidence can be doubled. For all four events the solid a
lines are almost straight, and can therefore be approx- CSI 5 (16)
imated by an exponential law. The triangles in Fig. 11 a1b1c
indicate the lifetime, defined as the integral of the cor- a2w
relation function over t [Eq. (3)], for Lagrangian per- ETS 5 . (17)
a1b1c2w
sistence. The exact values are, from left to right, 7.7,
8.7, 5.2, and 4.4 h, respectively. In some cases, we We prefer the ETS to the more common CSI for the
observed lifetimes far beyond 8 h, as illustrated in Fig. following reasons: the ETS is 0 for constant forecasts
12. The high variability of persistence agrees with what of either category (either a 1 c or b 1 d is 0) as well
we expect from visual observation of large-scale radar as for random forecasts (a/b 5 c/d), while a perfect
composites. Small isolated thunderstorms typically have forecast gets a value of 1. Figure 13 depicts the POD,
short lifetimes of a few 10s of minutes, and exhibit low FAR, CSI, and ETS for a threshold of 0.1 mm h 21 for
persistence, both Eulerian and Lagrangian. Whereas the same datasets as used in Fig. 11. At the point where
large coherent systems, which on an overall average the POD and FAR reach 0.5 the ETS is approximately
usually have smaller rainfall rates, are much more per- 0.3.
sistent in time, and predictable, by simple advection, up Neither the correlation depicted in Fig. 11 nor the
to several hours ahead. skill scores of Fig. 13 provide a direct measure of how
The correlation as defined in Eq. (2) is one way to accurate the forecast is. We thus calculate another pa-
assess the predictability. Another way is to look at skill rameter, the conditional mean absolute error (CMAE)
scores, such as the probability of detection (POD), the defined as follows:
false-alarm rate (FAR), the critical success index (CSI),
and the equitable threat score (ETS). These scores de-
scribe the skill of predicting the occurrence of precip-
CMAE 5
1
a
O |C(t
a
ˆ 1 t , x) 2 C(t 1 t , x)|
0 0 (18)

itation above a given threshold rate. The forecast image A difference in terms of logarithmic reflectivity can be
is of binary type: for each pixel we say event or no- attributed to a factor in terms of linear precipitation
event and define terms as follows: a 5 hits, b 5 misses, rates. Therefore, CMAE in dBZ corresponds to a relative
c 5 false alarms, d 5 correct negatives, and w 5 (a 1 error in mm h 21 . Assuming an exponent of 1.5 in the

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC

DECEMBER 2002 GERMANN AND ZAWADZKI
FIG. 10. Numerical diffusion of six advection schemes for a 6-h
forecast. OBS is the image at time t 0 . Here, IO stands for interpolate
once, as opposed to the conventional semi-lagrangian scheme where
interpolation is done several times.
Z–R relation (Smith and Joss 1997) a CMAE of 9 dBZ
corresponds to a factor of 4 for precipitation rates. The
CMAE combined with the POD provide crucial infor-
mation to the user of the forecast. For the 16 May 2000
case and a lead time of 3 h, Figs. 13 and 14 indicate a
POD of 60% and a CMAE of 7.6 dBZ. Thus, the oc-
currence of precipitation has been correctly predicted
for 60% of the precipitation area, and for this area the
average error is a factor of 3.2 in terms of rain rates.
b. Scale-dependence of predictability
The results presented in the previous section are all
based on pixel-by-pixel comparisons at a resolution of
4 km. Features at scales of a few kilometers typically
have short lifetimes (a few 10s of minutes, Orlanski
1975) and significantly contribute to the decorrelation
of Lagrangian persistence. A legitimate question is, To
FIG. 11. Correlation between forecast and observation for Eulerian persistence (dotted) and Lagrangian persistence (solid) of four events.
The triangles mark the lifetimes L of the solid curves estimated by means of Eq. (3).
2869
FIG. 12. Eulerian persistence (dotted) and Lagrangian persistence
(solid) for a subdomain of the 16 May 2000 data. The area of the
precipitation system is about 3 3 10 5 km 2 . Lifetime L is 15.4 h.
what extent can the predictability be extended by ig-
noring the small scales and focusing on features at larger
scales? To know the scale-dependence of predictability
of precipitation is crucial for several applications, for
instance, (i) when designing automated nowcasting and
warning systems, (ii) to compare the skill of two fore-
casts with different resolutions, and (iii) in advection
nowcasting procedures to prevent features from being
reproduced beyond their lifetime (Bellon and Zawadzki
1994).
A simple method of scale decomposition is to convert
the observation and forecast into binary maps (non-
event–event) using a threshold in intensity (Austin and
Houze 1972), and compare the binary maps by means
of skill scores. The reason why a threshold in intensity
can be used to separate different scales lies in the in-
tensity–size relationship. Figure 15 shows the ETS of
two events and a threshold of 0.1 mm h 21 , 1 mm h 21 ,
and 10 mm h 21 . During the 1998 event there is a large
gap between the lifetimes of 1 mm h 21 and 10 mm h 21
features. For the 10 mm h 21 threshold the ETS reaches
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
2870 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW
FIG. 13. Skill scores for a threshold of 0.1 mm h 21 .
0.3 already at a lead time of 0.5 h, while the same level
of confidence is reached at about 3 h for the 1 mm h 21
scale, and at 4 h for the 0.1 mm h 21 scale, which contains
the entire precipitation system.
To obtain a more complete picture of the predict-
ability as a function of the threshold rate, we determine
for nine thresholds the lead time at which the ETS falls
below 0.3. Figure 16 shows the corresponding curves
for the four events. On the basis of this type of diagram,
the skill for quantitative precipitation forecasting by nu-
merical modeling can be evaluated against Lagrangian
persistence.
A more rigorous way to determine the scale-depen-
dence of predictability is to decompose the radar images
according to scales and to repeat the procedure discussed
in the previous sections. The images are decomposed
by means of a low-pass filter in the spectral domain
using discrete-cosine-transforms (DCT; Ahmed et al.
1974; Gonzalez and Woods 1992). Then, decomposed
images are advected and compared to decomposed ob-
servations. The scale-dependence of the lifetimes of the
four events is shown in Fig. 17.
A next step (not taken here) is to replace the DCT
by wavelet transforms and spatial smoothing, possibly
anisotropically, and to repeat the same analysis.
FIG. 14. Conditional mean of absolute error (CMAE) between forecast and observation [Eq. (18)].
VOLUME 130
7. Discussion and outlook
A methodology is presented to determine the pre-
dictability of precipitation in terms of the Eulerian and
Lagrangian persistence of patterns from the storm scale
up to synoptic scales.
The motion field of radar echoes is retrieved from a
time series of images by minimizing a cost function
with two constraints: the residuals of the reflectivity
conservation equation and a smoothing penalty func-
tion. Because of growth and dissipation of precipitation,
the conservation equation of reflectivity is not perfectly
fulfilled. Therefore, it is used here as a weak constraint
that allows for model errors. The degree of smoothing
and the resolution of the motion field can be easily
controlled by parameters. The error structure of the radar
data is considered by utilizing a weighting vector. Re-
gions where radar measurements have low quality are
given small weights. The variational approach as op-
posed to simple tracking by correlation has the advan-
tage of incorporating several constraints, each weighted
according to its importance. External information can
be easily incorporated, either by adding a new con-
straint, or by using it as a first guess from which the
minimization starts.
Radar precipitation patterns are then advected by
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
DECEMBER 2002 GERMANN AND ZAWADZKI 2871

FIG. 15. Equitable threat score (ETS) for 30 July 1998 data (16 h,
thick lines) and for 16 May 2000 data (22 h, thin lines).

means of a modified semi-Lagrangian advection scheme

assuming stationary motion. The combination of the
variational echo tracking with semi-Lagrangian advec-
tion allows for rotation, which is mandatory when work- FIG. 16. Lead time at which ETS drops below 0.3 as a function of
ing on synoptic scales. threshold rate.
When using single-radar images, the lead time of use-
ful forecasts obtained by extrapolation of radar echoes
is strongly limited by the maximum range of the radar. suffer to some extent from brightband contamination,
A net gain in terms of forecast quality is observed when remaining ground echoes, and sampling error due to the
going to continental composites, which entirely reveal 15-min time step. Particular difficulties occur when
mesoscale precipitation systems such as frontal systems compositing data of several instruments, here more than
or lines of organized convection moving over the con-
tinent. Using an ETS of 0.3 as a limit of predictability
we get lead times for the four analysed systems of 4,
6, 2.5, and 2.5 h, respectively (Fig. 13).
The lifetime of precipitation patterns in Eulerian and
Lagrangian space are compared. According to our pre-
liminary results, Eulerian and Lagrangian persistence
differ by roughly a factor of 2 (Fig. 11). The time of
predictability for a given level of confidence can there-
fore be doubled by simple Lagrangian advection. In
other words, advection explains a significant part of the
variation of the precipitation rate at a given location.
The range of predictability increases with increasing
scale (Figs. 15, 16, and 17). Using a cutoff wavelength
of 64 km, and thus ignoring all the variation at the
thunderstorm scale, increases predictable Lagrangian
lifetimes over that of unfiltered images by 57, 53, 47,
and 39 min for the 1998, 2000, 2001, and 1999 events,
respectively. The slope of the curves in Fig. 17 reflect
to what extent the lifetime increases as a function of
scale. If the predictability is predominantly limited by
the smallest scale present in an image, then filtering
efficiently increases the lifetime. This is the case for the
1998 event, where most of the small-scale features are
embedded in larger rain areas. Note that, based on the FIG. 17. Lifetime as a function of scale. Scales are decomposed
by means of a low-pass filter and discrete-cosine-transforms. The
analyses presented here, nothing can be said about the images at scale 128 km, for instance, contain all variations at wave-
lifetime of scales with wavelengths smaller than 10 km. lengths of 128 km and larger. Power at wavelengths smaller than 128
The U.S. national radar composites used in this study km has been filtered out.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC

2872 MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW
100 radars. Missing radars and different calibration, for
instance, cause data gaps and discontinuities in the com-
posited image. All these sources of measurement error
contribute to the nugget variance, and result in under-
estimating the Eulerian and Lagrangian lifetimes. The
nugget variance is defined as the discontinuity at zero
lag of variograms or autocorrelation functions (Math-
eron 1963; Germann and Joss 2001). It can be deter-
mined by extrapolating the correlation function c(t) to
zero lag. If we then shift the correlation function by the
amount of the nugget variance, we get estimates of per-
sistence that are not affected by measurement errors of
the radar composites. Only preliminary tests have been
performed to do this correction. It has not been applied
to the material presented in this paper. In spite of the
somewhat lower accuracy inherent to large-scale com-
posites there is considerable benefit from using conti-
nental radar composites both to investigate the predict-
ability and to improve nowcasting.
The results of the few experiments that we performed
with the source-sink term are mixed: In some cases
decorrelation is slower and the forecast skill increases
when introducing a source-sink term that has been es-
timated in the assimilation window, while in others no
significant improvement is observed. For the results pre-
sented in section 6, the source-sink term has been set
to zero. The predictability of growth and dissipation has
yet to be analyzed before its incorporation in the ex-
trapolation procedure leads to consistent improvement.
The analysis will finally be performed with a large
set of data. The lifetime will be determined separately
for different systems, and compared to parameters of
synoptic forcing (Zawadzki et al. 1994). The results will
set a standard against which the skill for quantitative
precipitation forecasting by numerical modeling can be
evaluated. Lagrangian persistence fails at the point
where the source-sink term or nonstationarities in the
motion field become more important than advection.
Hence, to beat radar echo extrapolation the model has
to correctly predict the source-sink term and nonsta-
tionarities in the motion field, a rather difficult task.
So far, we were talking about the predictability of
precipitation intensity. There may be other quantities of
interest. In the same way we can study the predictability
of the temporal evolution of precipitation (persistence
of growth and dissipation), the predictability of the pow-
er spectrum, of the intensity probability distribution, or
of the spatial variability as described by variograms
(Germann and Joss 2001). Predicting these statistics, in
addition to the precipitation intensity, gives a more com-
plete forecast of the precipitation pattern that has to be
expected at a certain lead time. It crucially depends on
the application of the quantities which are most impor-
tant.
Another interesting experiment will be to repeat the
study with satellite images in order to assess the pre-
dictability of clouds.
VOLUME 130
Acknowledgments. The authors express their gratitude
to the Global Hydrology and Climate Center GHRC for
providing access to the WSI radar composites, and to
Dr. R. Carbone and his group at NCAR for putting an
excellent case selection kit on the web. A special thank-
you goes to Dr. Stéphane Laroche and Alain Caya for
the fruitful discussions on variational echo tracking.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, N., T. Natarajan, and K. R. Rao, 1974: Discrete cosine trans-
form. IEEE Trans. Comput., C23, 90–93.
Austin, P. M., and R. A. Houze Jr., 1972: Analysis of the structure
of precipitation patterns in New England. J. Appl. Meteor., 11,
926–935.
Bellon, A., and G. L. Austin, 1978: The evaluation of two years of
a real-time operation of a short-term precipitation forecasting
procedure (SHARP). J. Appl. Meteor., 17, 1778–1787.
——, and I. Zawadzki, 1994: Forecasting of hourly accumulations
of precipitation by optimal extrapolation of radar maps. J. Hy-
drol., 157, 211–233.
Carbone, R. E., J. D. Tuttle, D. A. Ahijevych, and S. B. Trier, 2002:
Inferences of predictability associated with warm season pre-
cipitation episodes. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 2033–2056.
Germann, U., and J. Joss, 2001: Variograms of radar reflectivity to
describe the spatial continuity of alpine precipitation. J. Appl.
Meteor., 40, 1042–1059.
Gonzalez, R. C., and R. E. Woods, 1992: Digital Image Processing.
Addison-Wesley, 716 pp.
Laroche, S., and I. Zawadzki, 1994: A variational analysis method
for retrieval of three-dimensional wind field from single-Doppler
radar data. J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 2664–2682.
——, and ——, 1995: Retrievals of horizontal winds from single-
Doppler clear-air data by methods of cross correlation and var-
iational analysis. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 12, 721–738.
Lilly, D. K., 1986: The structure, energetics and propagation of ro-
tating convective storms. Part II: Helicity and storm stabilization.
J. Atmos. Sci., 43, 126–140.
Lorenz, E. N., 1973: On the existence of extended range predict-
ability. J. Appl. Meteor., 12, 543–546.
Matheron, G., 1963: Principles of geostatistics. Econ. Geol., 58,
1246–1266.
Mecklenburg, S., J. Joss, and W. Schmid, 2000: Improving the now-
casting of precipitation in an Alpine region with an enhanced
radar echo tracking algorithm. J. Hydrol., 239, 46–68.
Navon, I. M., and D. M. Leger, 1987: Conjugate-gradient method for
large-scale minimization in meteorology. Mon. Wea. Rev., 115,
1479–1502.
Orlanski, I., 1975: A rational subdivision of scales for atmospheric
processes. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 56, 529–530.
Ostiguy, L., and J. P. R. Laprise, 1990: On the positivity of mass in
commonly used numerical transport schemes. Atmos.–Ocean, 28,
147–161.
Pierce, C. E., P. J. Hardaker, C. G. Collier, and C. M. Haggett, 2000:
GANDOLF: A system for generating automated nowcasts of
convective precipitation. Meteor. Appl., 7, 341–360.
Robert, A., 1981: A stable numerical integration scheme for the prim-
itive meteorological equations. Atmos.–Ocean, 19, 35–46.
Sawyer, J. S., 1963: A semi-Lagrangian method of solving the vor-
ticity advection equation. Tellus, 15, 336–342.
Seed, A. W., and T. Keenan, 2001: A dynamic and spatial scaling ap-
proach to advection forecasting. Preprints, 30th Conf. on Radar
Meteorology, Munich, Germany, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 492–494.
Smith, P. L., and J. Joss, 1997: Use of a fixed exponent in ‘‘adjustable’’
Z-R relationships. Preprints, 28th Conf. on Radar Meteorology,
Austin, TX, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 254–255.
Tsonis, A. A., and G. L. Austin, 1981: An evaluation of extrapolation
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC
DECEMBER 2002 GERMANN AND ZAWADZKI
techniques for the short-term prediction of rain amounts. Atmos.–
Ocean, 19, 54–65.
Wahba, G., and J. Wendelberger, 1980: Some new mathematical meth-
ods for variational objective analysis using splines and cross
validation. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1122–1143.
Wilson, J. W., N. A. Crook, C. K. Mueller, J. Sun, and M. Dixon,
2873
1998: Nowcasting thunderstorms: A status report. Bull. Amer.
Meteor. Soc., 79, 2079–2099.
Zawadzki, I., 1973: Statistical properties of precipitation patterns. J.
Appl. Meteor., 12, 459–472.
——, J. Morneau, and R. Laprise, 1994: Predictability of precipitation
patterns: An operational approach. J. Appl. Meteor., 33, 1562–1571.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/18/21 01:37 PM UTC