Open Access
Use of a Radar Simulator on the Output Fields from a Numerical Mesoscale Model to Analyze X-Band Rain Estimators
Author(s) -
Eric-Pascal Zahiri,
Marielle Gosset,
JeanPhilippe Lafore,
Viviane Gouget
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
journal of atmospheric and oceanic technology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.774
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1520-0426
pISSN - 0739-0572
DOI - 10.1175/2007jtecha933.1
Subject(s) - radar , mesoscale meteorology , polarimetry , computer science , remote sensing , meteorology , disdrometer , squall line , estimator , differential phase , algorithm , environmental science , rain gauge , geology , physics , mathematics , statistics , optics , telecommunications , scattering , keying
International audienceA full radar simulator, which works with the 3D output fields from a numerical mesoscale model, has been developed. This simulator uses a T-matrix code to calculate synthetic radar measurements, accounts for both backscattering and propagation effects, and includes polarimetric variables. The tool is modular to allow several options in the derivation of the synthetic radar variables. A measurement uncertainty can be taken into account on both the simulated reflectivities and the differential phase shift. A scheme can also be switched on to allow for the gate-to-gate variability of the rain drops size distribution or, also, their oblateness. This work was done in the framework of the installation in West Africa of a polarimetric X-band radar for the observation of tropical rain. Accordingly, the first objective pursued with this simulation setup is a detailed analysis of X-band polarimetric rain retrieval algorithms. Two retrieval schemes, a simple R–KDP formula and a profiler that uses both reflectivity and DP, are tested. For that purpose the simulator is run on a model case study of an African squall line, then the two schemes are used to retrieve the rain rates from the synthetic radar variables and compare them to the original. The scores of the schemes are discussed and compared. The authors analyze the sensitivity of the results to the measurement uncertainty and also to several aspects of drop size distribution and drop shape variability