1 / 59

Radar Hydrology in the U.S. National Weather Service: A Flash Flood Prediction- Centric Overview

Radar Hydrology in the U.S. National Weather Service: A Flash Flood Prediction- Centric Overview. Presented by D.-J. Seo. Hydrology Laboratory Office of Hydrologic Development National Weather Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In this presentation.

Download Presentation

Radar Hydrology in the U.S. National Weather Service: A Flash Flood Prediction- Centric Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Radar Hydrology in the U.S. National Weather Service: A Flash Flood Prediction-Centric Overview Presented by D.-J. Seo Hydrology Laboratory Office of Hydrologic Development National Weather Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

  2. In this presentation • What is radar hydrology? • A flash flood prediction-centric overview • Science issues, where NWS is headed • Closing remarks • Discussion

  3. Flash Flood Forecasting Presented by D.-J. Seo Hydrologic Science and Modeling Branch Hydrology Laboratory Office of Hydrologic Development National Weather Service USWRP Warm Season Workshop, Mar 2002

  4. Future Directions for Flash Flood Prediction D.-J. Seo Hydrologic Science and Modeling Branch Hydrology Laboratory National Weather Service NWS PQPF Science Strategy Workshop June 3-4, 2002

  5. QPE and Short-Range QPF for Flash Flood Forecasting and Decision Making: Outstanding Issues and Future Directions D.-J. Seo Hydrologic Science and Modeling Branch Hydrology Laboratory National Weather Service NWS Flash Flood Workshop Aug 27-29, 2002

  6. Multisensor Precipitation Estimator (MPE) Presented by D.-J. Seo Hydrologic Science and Modeling Branch Hydrology Laboratory National Weather Service Silver Spring, MD NWS Flash Flood Workshop, Aug 27-29, 2002

  7. Distributed models as a flash flood forecasting tool Presented by D.-J. Seo Hydrologic Science and Modeling Branch Hydrology Laboratory Office of Hydrologic Development National Weather Service NWS Flash Flood Workshop, Aug 27-29, 2002

  8. What is radar hydrology?

  9. Hydrology 001 Meteorology, Climatology precipitation evapo-transpiration Hydrometeorology, Hydroclimatology Surface runoff Surfacewater hydrology Soil moisture dS/dt=I-O Subsurface runoff Deep percolation Groundwater hydrology

  10. Data Model structure/physics Model parameters Initial conditions Observed boundary conditions Future boundary conditions Q/C, data assimilation Modeling Parameter estimation Data assimilation QPE QPF Post processing Sources of error, areas to be addressed

  11. What’s driving radar hydrology? • Better weather, water and climate prediction services • Finer scale • Improved accuracy • Longer lead time

  12. From the NWS strategic plan

  13. Radar hydrology - Current practice • Flash flood prediction and monitoring • River stage prediction and monitoring • NWP • Climate prediction and monitoring • Hydrometeorological design

  14. Flash Flood Guidance (FFG) Rainfall Soil moisture accounting model (SAC, API) Excess rainfall (threshold runoff) Routing model (unit hydrograph) Peak flow (Qpeak) Flood stage (>bankfull)

  15. Current Paradigm • QPE + QPF - FFG > some threshold

  16. Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction System (FFMP)

  17. Issues, where we’re headed • Quantitative Precipitation Estimation (QPE) • Quantitative Precipitation Forecast (QPF) • Hydrologic (soil moisture accounting) modeling • Hydraulic (routing) modeling (including inundation mapping) • Data assimilation • Dealing with uncertainty

  18. Questions • Where can we gain lead time? • Where can we gain accuracy? • Where can we gain (spatial) resolution? • How can one verify all this each step of the way?

  19. Forecast error

  20. Scale, nonlinear dynamics and uncertainty Errors due to neglecting spatio-temporal variability Goodness of forecast Nonlinear accretion of errors Scale

  21. Challenges of Distributed Modeling Space/Time Variability • Does accounting for the space/time variability of input data and parameters guarantee better results? Effect of noisy rainfall data on the peak volume at different simulation scales. 75% 50% Error 25% Increasing resolution From Koren et al. 2001, Smith et al. 2002

  22. Quantitative Precipitation Estimation • Radar QPE • Multisensor QPE • Polarimetric QPE

  23. DPA WSR-88D DHR/DSP ORPG/PPS Hydro-Estimator Rain Gauges Multi-Sensor Precipitation Estimator (MPE) Lightning NWP model output WFO-MPE WFO-MPE WFO RFC

  24. Real-time Hydrologic and Hydrometeorological Data From Cedrone 2002

  25. Effect of Bias Adjustment From Seo et al. 1999

  26. After correction Before correction

  27. Sampling Geometry - Topography - Reflectivity Morphology From Seo et al. 2000

  28. Vertical Profiles of Reflectivity Slant Range vs Adjustment Factor (Tilts 1 thru 3) From Seo et al. 2000

  29. Storm Total Rainfall - KATX, Unadjusted From Seo et al. 2000

  30. Storm Total Rainfall - KATX, Adjusted From Seo et al. 2000

  31. Extreme events • Radar QPE susceptible to errors due to; • Uncertainty in microphysical parameters (Z-R, hail, etc.) • Sampling problem associated with low centroid echos • Orographic enhancement • (Partial) Beam blockage

  32. Better rainfall estimates • Heavy rain • Discriminating rain from hail • Recovering areas of partial beam blockage • Removal of AP, clutter, birds, insects • October 2002 event • 1” to 3” gauge observations • Good estimates with polarimetric variable KDP • Large overestimates with Z-R • Partial beam blockage mitigated Rainfall Comparisons with the Oklahoma Mesonet J O I N T P O L A R I Z A T I O N E X P E R I M E N T From Schuur et al. 2003

  33. Statistical Summary Algorithm Mean Absolute Error Root Mean Squared Error Z 1.18" 1.99 Z-ZDR 1.29" 2.20 ZDR-KDP -0.21" 0.63 KDP -0.26" 0.61 Statistical Summary of Rainfall Estimation J O I N T P O L A R I Z A T I O N E X P E R I M E N T • The KDP algorithm significantly outperformed the Z algorithm, particularly in regions of heavy rainfall. • While the Z algorithm showed a bias toward overestimation, the KDP algorithm showed no consistent bias. • While partial beam blockage hindered the Z algorithm performance, no corresponding beam blockage was noted in the KDP algorithm output. From Schuur et al. 2003

  34. Snow Stratiform Convective Rain hail HCA – Including Snow Categories 16 June 2002 MCS (same as in conference preprint volume) Results include HCA improvements since 16 June 2002 AP – Ground clutter / AP BS - Biological scatterers DS – Dry snow WS – Wet snow SR – Stratiform rain CR – Convective rain RH – Rain / hail mixture J O I N T P O L A R I Z A T I O N E X P E R I M E N T From Schuur et al. 2003

  35. QPF • Warm-season QPF • Arguably the most difficult part of radar hydrology • Scale • Uncertainty • Probabilistic QPF (PQPF)

  36. Quantification of predictability of rainfall From Fulton and Seo 1999

  37. The ESP Process QPF, QTF Corrects bias, accounts for meteorological uncertainty ESP Pre-Processor Ensemble traces of precipitation, temperature Hydrologic model Ensemble traces of streamflow Corrects bias, accounts for hydrologic uncertainty ESP Post-Processor Ensemble traces of streamflow Reflects both uncertainties

  38. Ensemble traces of precipitation

  39. Ensemble traces of streamflow

  40. Ensemble traces of post-processed streamflow (stochastic)

  41. Hydrologic, hydraulic modeling • Distributed modeling • Data assimilation • Ensemble prediction

  42. FFMP basin size vs. NWSRFS calibrated basins From Smith 2002

  43. Kansas Missouri Oklahoma Arkansas Blue River Basin Texas Distributed modeling Test Basin Blue River Basin, OK Area: 1233 km2 From Zhang et al. 2001

  44. Soil moisture accounting

  45. Examples of Gridded Parameters From Zhang et al. 2002

  46. Hillslope Routing From Reed et al. 2002 Drainage Density Illustrated ~ 1.07

  47. Channel Routing From Reed et al. 2002

  48. Test Results Hydrographs @ Interior Points A B Basin Outlet C From Zhang et al. 2002

  49. 0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 18 18 - 45 Precipitation Distribution from NEXRAD Feb. 12, 1997 6:00 (mm) From Smith et al. 2002

  50. 0 - 1 1 - 10 10 - 15 15 - 20 20 - 25 25 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 45 45 - 59 Distribution of Upper Zone Free Water Feb. 12, 1997 6:00 (mm) From Smith et al. 2002

More Related