Radar-Rainfall Uncertainties
Where are We after Thirty Years of Effort?
by Witold F. Krajewski, Gabriele Villarini, and James A. Smith
Now is a good time to assess three decades of progress since Jim Wilson and Ed Brandes
summarized the operational capability of radar to provide quantitative rainfall estimates
with potential applications to hydrology.
T
he purpose of this article is to honor Jim Wilson
and Ed Brandes for their seminal paper (Wilson
and Brandes 1979), “Radar measurement of
rainfall—A summary.” The work has been frequently
cited [163 times according to the Institute for Scientific
Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge as of 7 June
2009], and it was a comprehensive attempt to summa-
rize the capabilities of weather radar to provide quan-
titative estimates of precipitation, which inspired a
generation of radar hydrometeorologists in the United
States and elsewhere. They discussed the numerous
sources of uncertainties associated with radar-based
rainfall estimates, including calibration, attenuation,
bright band, anomalous propagation, beam blockage,
ground clutter and spurious returns, random errors,
AFFILIATIONS: K rajewski —IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering,
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; Villarini and Smith —
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton
University, Princeton, New Jersey
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Witold F. Krajewski, IIHR-
Hydroscience & Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City,
IA 52242
E-mail: witold-krajewski@uiowa.edu
The abstract for this article can be found in this issue, following the
table of contents.
DOI:10.1175/2009BAMS2747.1
In final form 7 September 2009
©2010 American Meteorological Society
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
and variability in the relation between reflectivity
Z and rainfall rate R (Z–R relations). The authors
also addressed the possible impact of the errors in
rain gauge measurements of rainfall and sampling
uncertainties (errors resulting from the approxima-
tion of an areal estimate using a point measurement).
In particular, based on contemporary research (e.g.,
Huff 1970; Woodley et al. 1975) concerning the spatial
sampling error, Wilson and Brandes (1979) reported
that it “decreases with increasing area size, increasing
time period, increasing gage density, and increasing
rainfall amount.” Based on more recent research, we
have developed quantitative models that reflect how
the spatial sampling errors decrease with increasing
temporal and decreasing spatial scales, rain gauge
network density, and rainfall amount (e.g., Ciach and
Krajewski 1999; Zhang et al. 2007; Villarini et al. 2008;
Villarini and Krajewski 2008).
These uncertainties notwithstanding, Wilson
and Brandes foresaw the operational utility of radar-
rainfall estimation and promoted its use in flash flood
forecasting, noting that “radar can be of lifesaving
usefulness by alerting forecasters to the potential for
flash flooding.”
In this article, rather than trying to review the
(sizable) literature of the different methods of radar-
rainfall estimation and their accompanying sources
of uncertainties, our goal is to answer the question,
How much better can we do now versus what was
done 30 yr ago? To answer this question, we replicate,
january 2010 | 87
 to the highest degree possible, the analysis docu-
mented in Wilson and Brandes (1979) and report the
results. Acknowledging considerable technological
progress in electronics, computing, and communica-
tion, the basics of weather radar remain unchanged.
Because our focus is on recent operational data in
the United States, we do not assess polarimetric
radar performance (e.g., Zrnić 1996; Petersen et al.
1999; Zrnić and Ryzhkov 1999; Doviak et al. 2000;
Bringi and Chandrasekar 2001; Brandes et al. 2002,
2004). We limit our analysis to a similar number of
warm-season storms that were analyzed by Wilson
and Brandes (1979) and stay with the performance
statistics they used.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next
section, we describe the data and the setup used for
the analysis. In the “Results” section, we present the
results of this study, and in the last section, we sum-
marize our main points and conclude the paper.
SETUP AND DATA. Wilson and Brandes’ study
(1979) represented the operational weather radar
technology of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1971, the U.S.
National Weather Service (NWS) began the Digitized
Radar Experiment (D/RADEX) to improve the opera-
tional use of radar data through computer processing.
The early stages of D/RADEX involved four sites:
Kansas City, Missouri, established in August 1971;
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, (October 1971); Forth
Worth, Texas (December 1971); and Monett, Missouri
(February 1972). Several useful hydrometeoro-
logical products were developed under the program,
including echo tops, vertically integrated liquid water
content, severe weather probability, storm structure,
and rainfall accumulation. In 1983, the system was
upgraded to quasi-operational status and renamed the
Radar Data Processor, version II (RADAP II). As of
1991, the RADAP II network consisted of 12 sites. Six
of these sites cover a major portion of the Arkansas
River basin in the central part of the United States.
The RADAP II system was designed as a prototype
of the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD)
system of modern Doppler radars (Heiss et al. 1990;
Crum and Alberty 1993; Klazura and Imy 1993) and
served in that role until it ceased operation in 1992.
The RADAP II system used two types of radar:
Weather Surveillance Radar-1957 (WSR-57) and
Weather Surveillance Radar-1974 S band (WSR-74S).
Both share the same basic characteristics of a 2.2°
beam width and a 10-cm wavelength (S band). The
RADAP II sites collected base-level and tilt-sequence
(volumetric) observations of ref lectivity every
10–12 min. These observations were built from input
88 | january 2010
scans of data processed into 180 radials covering 360°
of azimuth under the radar umbrella. The radials
were centered on even azimuths, covered a range from
10 to 126 nautical miles, and contained a data value
for each nautical mile of range. The data values were
given in 16 (0–15) categories of radar reflectivity.
In the early 1990s, WSR-57 and WSR-74S radars
were replaced by the NEXRAD network of Weather
Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) radars
(e.g., Crum and Alberty 1993; Crum et al. 1998). The
first operational WSR-88D was installed in fall of
1990 in Norman, Oklahoma, while the last one was
installed in the summer of 1997 in North Webster,
Indiana. WSR-88D is an S-band radar with Doppler
capability. WSR-88D has a narrower 0.95° beamwidth
and collects base-level and tilt-sequence (volumetric)
observations of reflectivity every 5–6 or 10–12 min,
depending on the scanning strategy (e.g., Klazura
and Imy 1993). Apart from the base data products
(ref lectivity, mean radial velocity, and spectrum
width), WSR-88D radars use many different algo-
rithms to convert the base data into several hydro-
meteorological products (Klazura and Imy 1993). In
particular, rainfall estimates are generated through
the Precipitation Processing System (PPS; Fulton et al.
1998). PPS is a suit of algorithms with more than 40
adaptable parameters. Five subalgorithms comprise
the PPS: reflectivity preprocessing, rain-rate conver-
sion, rainfall accumulation, gauge–radar adjustment,
and rainfall product generation. Over the years, the
PPS has undergone frequent, albeit rather minor,
improvements. It has now evolved into a mature and
robust algorithm that provides the nation with crucial
precipitation data. The rainfall products generated by
the PPS include the Digital Precipitation Array (DPA),
3-h total, Digital Hybrid Reflectivity, and storm total.
In the summer of 2008, WSR-88D radars began col-
lecting data in the so-called superresolution, that is, at
0.5° in azimuth and 250 m in range. However, the PPS
does not utilize this new capability, largely because
of the arrival of dual polarization [dual-polarization
rain-rate products will be available on a 250 m × 1°
polar grid (Istok et al. 2009)].
Wilson and Brandes (1979) used radar-rainfall
estimates from the National Severe Storms Labora-
tory (NSSL) WSR-57 radar located close to Oklahoma
City. The radar was operated with a sampling interval
of 5 min. To convert reflectivity into rainfall rate,
the authors used the Marshall–Palmer Z–R relation
[Z = 200 R1.6 (Marshall and Palmer 1948; Marshall
et al. 1955)]. The radar data were complemented with
measurements from rain gauges located between 45
and 100 km from the radar site. Wilson and Brandes
(1979) compared radar and rain gauge data for
14 Oklahoma storms with durations ranging from
2 to 12 h from April to June 1974, plus a storm in
April 1975.
We mimic the analysis of Wilson and Brandes
(1979) as closely as possible. Our analysis is based
on 20 Oklahoma storms selected from a 6-yr period
from January 1998 to December 2003. The radar
data came from the Oklahoma City WSR-88D radar
(KTLX). We processed level II data through the Build
4 (newer versions are currently available) of the Open
Radar Product Generator (ORPG) version of the PPS
software system used by the NWS and generated
DPAs. This product represents hourly accumulation
maps averaged over the Hydrologic Rainfall Analysis
Project (HRAP) grid [approximately 4 × 4 km 2
pixels (e.g., Reed and Maidment 1999)]. We used
the NEXRAD Z–R relation [Z = 300 R1.4; see Fulton
et al. (1998)] to convert reflectivity into rainfall rate.
By using the ORPG, we assured consistency in data
processing for all storms.
Our radar-rainfall estimates are complemented
by concurrent and collocated rain gauge measure-
ments from the Oklahoma Mesonet (e.g., Brock et al.
1995) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Micronet (e.g.,
Allen and Naney 1991). As shown in Fig. 1, the former
consists of more than 110 weather stations distributed
almost uniformly across the state of Oklahoma, with
an intergauge distance of about 50 km; the Micronet is
a much denser network that consists of 42 rain gauges
located between 70 and 100 km from the Oklahoma
City radar site with an intergauge distance of about
5 km. Similarly to Wilson and Brandes (1979), we
include in our analysis only those gauges that are
located between 45 and 100 km.
While we made every effort to reproduce Wilson
and Brandes’ analysis (1979) as closely as possible
based on the information reported in their paper (see
in particular the “Results” in their paper), there are
some obvious differences between the two studies.
First, the radar technology is different. Our radar
data come from the WSR-88D radar (e.g., Crum
and Alberty 1993; Klazura and Imy 1993), which is
much more sensitive and has a larger antenna than
the WSR-57 radar used by Wilson and Brandes.
Even though both of these radars operate at S band,
WSR-57 has 2.2° beamwidth, while WSR-88D has
0.95° beamwidth. This means that at 100-km range
from the radar, the WSR-57 provides reflectivity over
pixels that are about 2 km × 2 km (1 nm), while the re-
flectivity data available for the WSR-88D correspond
to about 1 km × 1 km pixels. Wilson and Brandes
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Fig . 1. Map with the location of the rain gauges and
radar site.
(1979) analyzed their rainfall estimates in polar
coordinates with 2° × 1 km resolution (E. Brandes
2009, personal communication). In our case, the
radar-rainfall estimates were averaged over the HRAP
grid. Even though this presumably implies a factor of
4 ratio in the spatial resolution between the two stud-
ies, we do not think that this significantly impacts our
comparisons, because we are working with rainfall
storm totals. The representativeness of rain gauge
data with respect to both resolutions can be assessed
(not included) based on the information collected at
the Piconet rain gauge network at the Oklahoma City
Airport and reported by Ciach and Krajewski (2006).
Another difference is the Z–R relationship used in
the two studies: the default Z–R relation for WSR-57
was Marshall–Palmer (Z = 200 R1.6), while we used
the NEXRAD Z–R (Z = 300 R1.4), which is the most
common Z–R relationship used operationally. This
difference in the Z–R relationship might impact the
results because there is some evidence (e.g., Villarini
2008; Villarini and Krajewski 2010) that Marshall–
Palmer Z–R leads to higher errors in radar-rainfall
estimates for a midwestern climate. We did not repro-
cess the data with the Marshall–Palmer Z–R relation
because it would necessitate use of the ORPG, which
is exceedingly tedious and cumbersome.
As we mentioned before, we selected 20 storms for
our study. We defined the beginning of a “storm” as
the point at which 1-h rainfall accumulation larger
than zero was first detected by any of the rain gauges
within 45 and 100 km from the radar; we defined
the conclusion of the event as the time at which a
prolonged zero-rainfall period began. Wilson and
Brandes (1979) did not offer their definition of a
storm, but we were able to determine that “[s]torm
periods began comfortably before any gauge used for
january 2010 | 89
 comparison experienced rain and ended well after
rain stopped at the last site affected. Events with rain
already in progress were not selected to avoid errors
associated with gauge timing” (E. Brandes 2009, per-
sonal communication). Thus, even though the details
of the definition of a storm in these two studies might
differ, we do not believe that this aspect would signifi-
cantly influence our comparison of the results.
RESULTS. In Table 1, we summarize the results of
our analysis for the 20 storms considered in this study.
We tried to include only events that occurred between
April and October (the only exception were events
1 and 3) to avoid problems associated with rainfall
measurements by radar and rain gauges during the
winter months (e.g., Smith et al. 1996; Germann et al.
2006; Ciach et al. 2007). This is in agreement with
Table 2 in Wilson and Brandes (1979), where they only
included events that occurred in April–June.
A larger number of rain gauges were available for
this study. With the exception of event 6, in which
only 44 rain gauges were working for the entire storm,
we used at least 53 rain gauges for each event. On
average, Wilson and Brandes (1979) used measure-
ments from 16 rain gauges, with a minimum of 5 and
a maximum of 22. Comparing the storm durations
between the two studies, it is evident that our events
lasted longer than those in Wilson and Brandes
(1979). In this study, we have events with durations
ranging from 6 to 52 h (on average, they lasted ap-
proximately 21 h). The events selected by Wilson and
Brandes (1979) were much shorter, ranging from 2
to 12 h, with an average duration of less than 6 h.
-
Moreover, the rain gauge averages (G ) for our storms
tend to be higher than those in Wilson and Brandes
(1979). It is possible that these differences are due to
the contrasting definition of “storm” between the
two studies.
In column 8 in Table 1, we report the results for
the same quantities as those in Table 2 in Wilson and
Brandes (1979). In particular, representing with Gi and
Ri the storm total rainfall accumulation values for the
ith rain gauge measurement and the corresponding
radar-rainfall estimate, we write
(1)
(2)
90 | january 2010
(3)
relative dispersion about E[G/R]
(4)
average difference (5)
average difference (storm bias removed)
(6)
where N is the number of gauges available during a
particular event and σ[G/R] is the standard deviation
of the ratios between rain gauge measurements G and
radar-rainfall estimates R.
The column with the ratio between rain gauge and
radar accumulations (column 8) reports values ranging
from 0.58 (overestimation by the radar compared to
the rain gauges) to 1.66 (underestimation by the radar
compared to the rain gauges). Wilson and Brandes
(1979) found values ranging from 0.41 to 2.41, with a
more extreme underestimation and overestimation by
the radar compared to the rain gauges. When averag-
ing the results from the 20 selected storms, we obtain a
value of 0.99 compared to a value of 1.04 from Wilson
and Brandes (1979). Therefore, in general we have an
overall improvement in terms of the average gauge–
radar ratios (with a value closer to 1 for WSR-88D), but
the statistical significance of the difference is difficult
to establish within the scope of this study.
Column 9 summarizes the values of the coefficient
of variation of the gauge–radar ratios. Based on our
analysis, we obtain values ranging from about 15%
to 45%, with an average value of 25.5%. Even in this
case, we observe an overall improvement compared
to the results presented in Wilson and Brandes (1979):
their results ranged from 10% to 46%, with an average
value of 30%. Therefore, we have an overall improve-
ment on the order of 17% compared to the results
published 30 yr ago.
Table 1. Summary of the comparisons between radar and rain gauges for the 20 selected storms.
Relative Avg diff
– – Avg
Date Number Duration G R dispersion (E[G/R
Event Date (end) E[G/R] diff
(begin) of gauges (h) (mm) (mm) about removed)
%
E[G/R] (%) %
0100 UTC 1500 UTC
1 54 15 60.57 45.98 1.33 15.02 23.57 11.89
4 Jan 1998 4 Jan1998
1100 UTC 1700 UTC
2 53 31 61.40 44.82 1.39 20.57 27.18 16.35
26 Apr 1998 27 Apr 1998
2200 UTC 0000 UTC
3 56 27 42.15 32.49 1.38 20.55 32.29 19.93
11 Mar 1999 13 Mar 1999
0100 UTC 1400 UTC
4 56 14 28.37 18.74 1.48 17.15 30.40 14.86
14 Apr 1999 14 Apr 1999
0200 UTC 1100 UTC
5 55 10 31.17 31.21 1.04 23.28 15.94 17.24
10 May 1999 10 May 1999
0200 UTC 2300 UTC
6 44 46 55.31 52.33 1.10 23.17 16.54 17.38
30 Oct 1999 31 Oct 1999
0900 UTC 1900 UTC
7 55 11 28.34 29.16 0.97 17.42 14.93 14.38
28 Jun 2000 28 Jun 2000
0800 UTC 1700 UTC
8 53 10 21.46 27.33 0.81 36.54 41.29 25.09
22 Jul 2000 22 Jul 2000
1800 UTC 1400 UTC
9 56 21 32.67 41.83 0.78 18.74 32.92 13.79
4 May 2001 5 Mar 2001
0200 UTC 1100 UTC
10 54 10 31.10 40.99 0.80 27.63 39.80 24.32
28 May 2001 28 May 2001
1200 UTC 2300 UTC
11 55 12 19.56 38.30 0.58 33.84 91.37 24.33
12 Apr 2002 12 Apr 2002
2100 UTC 1600 UTC
12 54 20 42.45 68.58 0.62 18.61 68.06 15.23
4 Jun 2002 5 Jun 2002
1500 UTC 2000 UTC
13 55 6 18.87 29.12 0.65 21.32 61.24 17.87
13 Jun 2002 13 Jun 2002
0800 UTC 1500 UTC
14 54 8 21.78 32.89 0.65 30.53 72.64 31.13
27 Aug 2002 27 Apr 2002
1300 UTC 1800 UTC
15 55 30 40.20 24.80 1.66 34.12 37.32 32.98
8 Sep 2002 9 Sep 2002
0000 UTC 1400 UTC
16 54 15 27.68 44.15 0.63 25.47 69.04 22.25
19 Sep 2002 19 Sep 2002
0900 UTC 2100 UTC
17 56 37 61.69 47.66 1.26 17.23 24.52 15.03
8 Oct 2002 9 Oct 2002
1100 UTC 2100 UTC
18 54 35 45.58 53.34 0.90 45.48 34.41 26.01
4 Jun 2003 5 Jun 2003
0900 UTC 1700 UTC
19 55 9 23.46 28.66 0.71 39.06 77.30 44.72
9 Aug 2003 9 Aug 2003
2000 UTC 2300 UTC
20 55 52 64.80 67.55 0.96 24.72 23.23 21.98
29 Aug 2003 31 Aug 2003
Average 20 cases: 0.99 25.5 41.7 21.3

We obtain an even larger improvement when
comparing the average differences between radar
and rain gauges (column 10). Overall, we observe
an average difference of 41.7% between radar and
rain gauges (48.9% considering only events lasting
≤15 h), with values ranging from about 15% to 91%.
These values are smaller than those reported in
Wilson and Brandes (1979); on average, the differ-
ence between radar and rain gauges was 63%, with
values ranging from 30% to 160%. Therefore, in this
case, we observe a reduction in the average differ-
ences between radar and rain gauges on the order
of 33% with respect to the data analyzed by Wilson
and Brandes (1979).

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY january 2010 | 91

 Finally, we recalculated the average differences
after correcting for the storm bias (column 11). The
average differences between radar and rain gauges
decreased, with values ranging from 11.9% to 44.7%,
and with an average value of 21.3% (26.1% when
considering only events lasting ≤15 h). The results
in Wilson and Brandes (1979) were closer to these,
with values ranging from 8% to 42%, and on average
equal to 24%.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. This
short paper was written to acknowledge Wilson and
Brandes for their benchmark paper (Wilson and
Brandes 1979). Their study can be considered one
of the first in which uncertainties in radar-rainfall
estimates were quantitatively summarized and
discussed. Despite considerable uncertainties in
radar-rainfall estimates revealed by the study, they
foresaw the tremendous potential of using radar in
hydrology. Now, it is hard to even imagine the absence
of radar-rainfall maps in our everyday personal and
professional activities.
Thirty years after their paper was published,
we sought to answer the following question: How
much better can we do now? Our analysis confirms
that we can do significantly better. We found an
overall reduction in the average differences between
radar and rain gauges on the order of 33%; we also
found a reduction in the coefficient of variation of
the expected value of the ratios between rain gauge
measurements and radar estimates on the order of
17%, and much of this improvement can be associ-
ated with the improved radar hardware and software
(e.g., smaller beam width). These numbers should
be interpreted in a qualitative sense rather than as
a new benchmark. There are several other studies
documented in the literature that have evaluated vari-
ous aspects of the current technology performance
(e.g., Smith et al. 1996; Baeck and Smith 1998; Young
et al. 1999; Brandes et al. 1999; Westrick et al. 1999;
Seo et al. 2000; Ciach et al. 2007) and cumulatively
provided a much more comprehensive assessment.
Efforts continue to improve operational quantita-
tive precipitation estimation (QPE) products (e.g.,
Vasiloff et al. 2007), likely resulting in better results
than those indicated by our simple analysis. In the
future, it is expected that radar-rainfall uncertainties
will be reduced even more with the use of polari-
metric radars (e.g., Zrnić 1996; Petersen et al. 1999;
Zrnić and Ryzhkov 1999; Bringi and Chandrasekar
2001; Brandes et al. 2002, 2004), and we hope that in
30 yr there will be a similar study reporting further
progress.
92 | january 2010
Benchmarking performance of observing systems
is a critical element necessary for continued progress.
How can you argue that you could do better if you do
not know how well you can do? We take this oppor-
tunity to call for a more systematic approach to our
(hydrologic) community’s efforts to monitor its own
progress. Preserving data and legacy software would
allow long-term reanalysis similar to what has been
done in the area of numerical weather prediction mod-
eling (e.g., Kalney et al. 1996). Developing adequate
performance measures and evaluation technologies
should be an integral part of the approach. While
going back in time would be unfeasible, all-digital
archives of the present and future should facilitate
reanalysis and closer monitoring of the progress.
While trying to reduce uncertainties in radar-
rainfall estimates, we should also focus on finding
ways to account for various error sources. In
particular, we think that empirically supported
modeling of the total radar-rainfall uncertainties
warrants future investigations and studies. In the
literature, few studies present results about the im-
pact of the total uncertainties; however, in the vast
majority of the cases, these models are based on as-
sumptions and educated guesses.
One key factor in solving the persistent problem
of radar-rainfall uncertainties is the availability of
dense rain gauge networks that could provide valu-
able information for modeling these uncertainties.
Consequently, networks should be located in different
parts of the United States that are characterized by
different topography and climatic conditions. While
meteorological networks in the United States are
abundant (e.g., National Research Council 2009),
only a few meet the requirements for the density and
quality required to support radar-rainfall uncertainty
studies.
Despite over 30 yr of effort, the comprehensive
characterization of uncertainty of radar-rainfall
estimation has not been achieved. We hope that
ensemble forecasting (e.g., Schaake et al. 2007)
both in meteorology and hydrology will lead to an
intensification of effort, because error covariance
is needed (e.g., Berenguer and Zawadzki 2008) to
improve forecasting ability. The celebrated study by
Wilson and Brandes (1979) will remain a cornerstone
of this effort.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We appreciate the useful
comments and clarifications provided by both Jim Wilson
and Ed Brandes. Partial support for the first author was
provided by the Rose and Joseph Summers Endowment.
The second author was supported by NASA Headquarters
under the Earth Science Fellowship Grant NNX06AF23H
while he was a graduate student at The University of Iowa.
The authors also acknowledge discussions over the years
with Grzegorz Ciach, Dominique Creutin, Dong-Jun Seo,
and Dave Kitzmiller, among many others.
References
Allen, P. B., and J. W. Naney, 1991: Hydrology of the
Little Washita River Watershed, Oklahoma: Data
and analyses. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service Publication ARS-90,
73 pp.
Baeck, M. L., and J. A. Smith, 1998: Rainfall estimation
by the WSR-88D for heavy rainfall events. Wea.
Forecasting, 13, 416–436.
Berenguer, M., and I. Zawadzki, 2008: A study of the
error covariance matrix of radar rainfall estimates in
stratiform rain. Wea. Forecasting, 23, 1085–1101.
Brandes, E. A., J. Vivekanandan, and J. W. Wilson,
1999: A comparison of radar reflectivity estimates
of rainfall from collocated radars. J. Atmos. Oceanic
Technol., 16, 1264–1272.
—, G. Zhang, and J. Vivekanandan, 2002: Experi-
ments in rainfall estimation with a polarimetric
radar in a subtropical environment. J. Appl. Meteor.,
41, 674–685.
—, —, and —, 2004: Comparison of polarimetric
radar drop size distribution retrieval algorithms. J.
Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 21, 584–598.
Bringi, V. N., and V. Chandrasekar, 2001: Polarimetric
Doppler Weather Radar, Principles and Applications,
Cambridge University Press, 634 pp.
Brock, F. V., K. C. Crawford, R. L. Elliott, G. W. Cuperus,
S. J. Stadler, H. L. Johnson, and M. D. Eilts, 1995: The
Oklahoma Mesonet: A technical overview. J. Atmos.
Oceanic Technol., 12, 5–19.
Ciach, G. J., and W. F. Krajewski, 1999: On the estima-
tion of radar rainfall error variance. Adv. Water
Resour., 22, 585–595.
—, and —, 2006: Analysis and modeling of spatial
correlation structure in small-scale rainfall in Central
Oklahoma. Adv. Water Resour., 29, 1450–1463.
—, —, and G. Villarini, 2007: Product-error-driven
uncertainty model for probabilistic quantitative
precipitation estimation with NEXRAD data. J.
Hydrometeor., 8, 1325–1347.
Crum, T. D., and R. L. Alberty, 1993: The WSR-88D
and the WSR-88D operational support facility. Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc., 74, 1669–1687.
—, R. E. Saffle, and J. W. Wilson, 1998: An update on
the NEXRAD program and future WSR-88D support
to operations. Wea. Forecasting, 13, 253–262.
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Doviak, R. J., V. Bringhi, A. Ryzhkov, A. Zahrai, and
D. Zrnić, 2000: Considerations for polarimetric
upgrades to operational WSR-88D radars. J. Atmos.
Oceanic Technol., 17, 257–278.
Fulton, R. A., J. P. Breidenbach, D.-J. Seo, D. A. Miller,
and T. O’Bannon, 1998: WSR-88D rainfall algorithm.
Wea. Forecasting, 13, 377–395.
Germann, U., G. Galli, M. Boscacci, and M. Bolliger,
2006: Radar precipitation measurement in a moun-
tainous region. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 132,
1669–1692.
Heiss, W. H., D. L. McGrew, and D. Sirmans, 1990: Next
Generation Weather Radar (WSR-88D). Microwave
J., 33, 79–98.
Huff, F. A., 1970: Sampling errors in measurement of
mean precipitation. J. Appl. Meteor., 9, 35–44.
Istok, M., and Coauthors, 2009: WSR-88D dual polariza-
tion initial operational capabilities. Preprints, 25th
Conf. on International Interactive Information and
Processing Systems (IIPS) for Meteorology, Oceanog-
raphy, and Hydrology, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor.
Soc., 15.5. [Available online at http://ams.confex.
com/ams/pdfpapers/148927.pdf.]
Kalnay, E., and Coauthors, 1996: The NCEP/NCAR
40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
77, 437–471.
Klazura, G. E., and D. A. Imy, 1993: A description of
the initial set of analysis products available from
the NEXRAD WSR-88D system. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc., 74, 1293–1311.
Marshall, J. S., and W. M. Palmer, 1948: The distribution
of raindrops with size. J. Meteor., 5, 165–166.
—, W. Hitschfeld, and K. L. S. Gunn, 1955: Advances
in radar weather. Advances in Geophysics, Vol. 2,
Academic Press, 1–56.
National Research Council, 2009: Observing weather
and climate from the ground up: A nationwide
network of networks. National Academies Press,
234 pp.
Petersen, W. A., and Coauthors, 1999: Mesoscale and
radar observations of the Fort Collins flash flood of
28 July 1997. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80, 191–216.
Reed, S. M., and D. R. Maidment, 1999: Coordinate
transformations for using NEXRAD data in GIS-
based hydrologic modeling, J. Hydrol. Eng., 4(2),
174–182.
Schaake, J. C., T. M. Hamill, R. Buizza, and M. Clark,
2007: HEPEX: The Hydrological Ensemble Pre-
diction Experiment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88,
1541–1547.
Seo, D.-J., J. Breidenbach, R. Fulton, D. Miller, and
T. O’Bannon, 2000: Real-time adjustment of range-
dependent biases in WSR-88D rainfall estimates
january 2010 | 93
 due to nonuniform vertical profile of reflectivity. J.
Hydrometeor., 1, 222–240.
Smith, J. A., D.-J Seo, M. Baeck, and M. Hudlow, 1996:
An intercomparison study of NEXRAD precipitation
estimates. Water Resour. Res., 32, 2035–2045.
Vasiloff, S. V., and Coauthors, 2007: Improving QPE and
very short-term QPF: An initiative for a community-
wide integrated approach. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,
88, 1899–1911.
Villarini, G., 2008: Empirically-based modeling of
radar-rainfall uncertainties. Ph.D. thesis, The
University of Iowa, 321 pp.
—, and W. F. Krajewski, 2008: Empirically-based
modeling of spatial sampling uncertainties associ-
ated with rainfall measurements by rain gauges. Adv.
Water Resour., 31, 1015–1023.
—, and —, 2010: Sensitivity studies of the models
of radar-rainfall uncertainties. J. Appl. Meteor.
Climatol., in press, doi:10.1175/2009JAMC2188.1.
—, P. V. Mandapaka, W. F. Krajewski, and R. J.
Moore, 2008: Rainfall and sampling errors: A rain
gauge perspective. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D11102,
doi:10.1029/2007JD009214.
Westrick, K. J., C. F. Mass, and B. A. Colle, 1999: The
limitations of the WSR-88D radar network for
quantitative precipitation measurement over the
coastal United States. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80,
2289–2298.
Wilson, J. W., and E. A. Brandes, 1979: Radar measure-
ment of rainfall—A summary. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc., 60, 1048–1058.
Woodley, W., A. Olsen, A. Herndon, and V. Wiggert,
1975: Comparison of gage and radar methods of
convective rain measurement. J. Appl. Meteor., 14,
909–928.
Young, C. B., B. R. Nelson, A. A. Bradley, J. A. Smith,
C. D. Peters-Lidard, A. Kruger, and M. L. Baeck,
1999: An evaluation of NEXRAD precipitation
estimates in complex terrain. J. Geophys. Res., 104,
19 691–19 703.
Zhang, Y., T. Adams, and J. V. Bonta, 2007: Subpixel-
scale rainfall variability and the effects on the
separation of radar and gauge rainfall errors. J.
Hydrometeor., 8, 1348–1363.
Zrnić, D. S., 1996: Weather radar polarimetry—Trends
toward operational applications. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc., 77, 1529–1534.
—, and A. V. Ryzhkov, 1999: Polarimetry for weather
surveillance radars. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 80,
389–406.

94 | january 2010