Abstract

Accurate weather observations are the keystone to many quantitative applications, such as precipitation monitoring and nowcasting, hydrological modelling and forecasting, climate studies, as well as understanding precipitation-driven natural hazards (i.e. floods, landslides, debris flow). Weather radars have been an increasingly popular tool since the 1940s to provide high spatial and temporal resolution precipitation data at the mesoscale, bridging the gap between synoptic and point scale observations. Yet, many institutions still struggle to tap the potential of the large archives of reflectivity, as there is still much to understand about factors that contribute to measurement errors, one of which is calibration. Calibration represents a substantial source of uncertainty in quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE). A miscalibration of a few dBZ can easily deteriorate the accuracy of precipitation estimates by an order of magnitude. Instances where rain cells carrying torrential rains are misidentified by the radar as moderate rain could mean the difference between a timely warning and a devastating flood.

Since 2012, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) has been expanding the country’s ground radar network. We had a first look into the dataset from one of the longest running radars (the Subic radar) after devastating week-long torrential rains and thunderstorms in August 2012 caused by the annual southwest-monsoon and enhanced by the north-passing Typhoon Haikui. The analysis of the rainfall spatial distribution revealed the added value of radar-based QPE in comparison to interpolated rain gauge observations. However, when compared with local gauge measurements, severe miscalibration of the Subic radar was found. As a consequence, the radar-based QPE would have underestimated the rainfall amount by up to 60% if they had not been adjusted by rain gauge observations—a technique that is not only affected by other uncertainties, but which is also not feasible in other regions of the country with very sparse rain gauge coverage.

Relative calibration techniques, or the assessment of bias from the reflectivity of two radars, has been steadily gaining popularity. Previous studies have demonstrated that reflectivity observations from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) and its successor, the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), are accurate enough to serve as a calibration reference for ground radars over low-to-mid-latitudes (\(\pm\) 35 \(^{\circ}\) for TRMM; \(\pm\) 65 \(^{\circ}\) for GPM). Comparing spaceborne radars (SR) and ground radars (GR) requires cautious consideration of differences in measurement geometry and instrument specifications, as well as temporal coincidence. For this purpose, we implement a 3-D volume matching method developed by Schwaller and Morris (2011) and extended by Warren et al. (2018) to 5 years worth of observations from the Subic radar. In this method, only the volumetric intersections of the SR and GR beams are considered.

Calibration bias affects reflectivity observations homogeneously across the entire radar domain. Yet, other sources of systematic measurement errors are highly heterogeneous in space, and can either enhance or balance the bias introduced by miscalibration. In order to account for such heterogeneous errors, and thus isolate the calibration bias, we assign a quality index to each matching SR–GR volume, and thus compute the GR calibration bias as a quality-weighted average of reflectivity differences in any sample of matching SR–GR volumes. We exemplify the idea of quality-weighted averaging by using beam blockage fraction (BBF) as a quality variable. Quality-weighted averaging is able to increase the consistency of SR and GR observations by decreasing the standard deviation of the SR–GR differences, and thus increasing the precision of the bias estimates.

To extend this framework further, the SR–GR quality-weighted bias estimation is applied to the neighboring Tagaytay radar, but this time focusing on path-integrated attenuation (PIA) as the source of uncertainty. Tagaytay is a C-band radar operating at a lower wavelength and is therefore more affected by attenuation. Applying the same method used for the Subic radar, a time series of calibration bias is also established for the Tagaytay radar.

Tagaytay radar sits at a higher altitude than the Subic radar and is surrounded by a gentler terrain, so beam blockage is negligible, especially in the overlapping region. Conversely, Subic radar is largely affected by beam blockage in the overlapping region, but being an S-Band radar, attenuation is considered negligible. This coincidentally independent uncertainty contributions of each radar in the region of overlap provides an ideal environment to experiment with the different scenarios of quality filtering when comparing reflectivities from the two ground radars. The standard deviation of the GR–GR differences already decreases if we consider either BBF or PIA to compute the quality index and thus the weights. However, combining them multiplicatively resulted in the largest decrease in standard deviation, suggesting that taking both factors into account increases the consistency between the matched samples.

The overlap between the two radars and the instances of the SR passing over the two radars at the same time allows for verification of the SR–GR quality-weighted bias estimation method. In this regard, the consistency between the two ground radars is analyzed before and after bias correction is applied. For cases when all three radars are coincident during a significant rainfall event, the correction of GR reflectivities with calibration bias estimates from SR overpasses dramatically improves the consistency between the two ground radars which have shown incoherent observations before correction. We also show that for cases where adequate SR coverage is unavailable, interpolating the calibration biases using a moving average can be used to correct the GR observations for any point in time to some extent. By using the interpolated biases to correct GR observations, we demonstrate that bias correction reduces the absolute value of the mean difference in most cases, and therefore improves the consistency between the two ground radars.

This thesis demonstrates that in general, taking into account systematic sources of uncertainty that are heterogeneous in space (e.g. BBF) and time (e.g. PIA) allows for a more consistent estimation of calibration bias, a homogeneous quantity. The bias still exhibits an unexpected variability in time, which hints that there are still other sources of errors that remain unexplored. Nevertheless, the increase in consistency between SR and GR as well as between the two ground radars, suggests that considering BBF and PIA in a weighted-averaging approach is a step in the right direction.

Despite the ample room for improvement, the approach that combines volume matching between radars (either SR–GR or GR–GR) and quality-weighted comparison is readily available for application or further scrutiny. As a step towards reproducibility and transparency in atmospheric science, the 3D matching procedure and the analysis workflows as well as sample data are made available in public repositories. Open-source software such as Python and wradlib are used for all radar data processing in this thesis. This approach towards open science provides both research institutions and weather services with a valuable tool that can be applied to radar calibration, from monitoring to a posteriori correction of archived data.