JANUARY 2006

KUMMEROW ET AL.

23

Quantifying Global Uncertainties in a Simple Microwave Rainfall Algorithm
CHRISTIAN KUMMEROW, WESLEY BERG, JODY THOMAS-STAHLE, AND HIROHIKO MASUNAGA
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado(Manuscript received 27 October 2004, in final form 14 April 2005)
ABSTRACT
While a large number of methods exist in the literature for retrieving rainfall from passive microwave
brightness temperatures, little has been written about the quantitative assessment of the expected uncertainties in these rainfall products at various time and space scales. The latter is the result of two factors:
sparse validation sites over most of the world’s oceans, and algorithm sensitivities to rainfall regimes thatcause inconsistencies against validation data collected at different locations. To make progress in this area,
a simple probabilistic algorithm is developed. The algorithm uses an a priori database constructed from theTropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) radar data coupled with radiative transfer computations.
Unlike efforts designed to improve rainfall products, this algorithm takes a step backward in order to focus
on uncertainties. In addition to inversion uncertainties, the construction of the algorithm allows errors
resulting from incorrect databases, incomplete databases, and time- and space-varying databases to be
examined. These are quantified. Results show that the simple algorithm reduces errors introduced byimperfect knowledge of precipitation radar (PR) rain by a factor of 4 relative to an algorithm that is tuned
to the PR rainfall. Database completeness does not introduce any additional uncertainty at the global scale,
while climatologically distinct space/time domains add approximately 25% uncertainty that cannot be
detected by a radiometer alone. Of this value, 20% is attributed to changes in cloud morphology andmicrophysics, while 5% is a result of changes in the rain/no-rain thresholds. All but 2%–3% of thisvariability can be accounted for by considering the implicit assumptions in the algorithm. Additional
uncertainties introduced by the details of the algorithm formulation are not quantified in this study becauseof the need for independent measurements that are beyond the scope of this paper. A validation strategy
for these errors is outlined.

1. Introduction
Passive microwave algorithms designed to measure
precipitation can be grouped into a relatively small
number of classes depending upon the physical principle employed. The “emission” principle exploits theincreased radiation originating from cloud and rainwater over radiometrically cold surfaces, such as theocean. A well-known example using 19-GHz brightness
temperatures is described by Wilheit et al. (1991) andlater by Chang et al. (1999). While conceptually simple,
emission techniques require knowledge of the freezing
level, the integrated cloud and water vapor content, andthe shape of the rainfall profile in order to relate theintegrated water observed by the radiometer to the sur-Corresponding author address: Christian Kummerow, Dept. of
Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
CO 80523-1371.
E-mail: kummerow@atmos.colostate.edu© 2006 American Meteorological Society

JTECH1827

face rainfall. In addition, these techniques must accountfor the rainfall inhomogeneity within rather large satellite fields of view [⬃50 km for the Special Sensor
Microwave Imager (SSM/I) and ⬃25 km for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Microwave
Imager (TMI) and the Advanced Microwave Sounding
Radiometer (AMSR)-E] in order to properly compensate for nonlinearities in the brightness temperature(Tb) versus water content relationships. The lack ofconstraints on these parameters translates directly intolarge uncertainties within individual pixels.
To reduce uncertainties at the pixel level, algorithms
such as those developed by Petty (1994) and Aonashi
and Liu (2000) rely on an approach similar to thatabove mentioned, but with additional frequencies used
to help constrain the problem. The additional channels,
unfortunately, do not provide any additional direct information about the surface rainfall. Instead, the additional channels are used to help describe some propertyof the underlying cloud, such as its convective or strati-

24

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGYVOLUME 23

FIG. 1. Time series of TRMM operational radar (3A25) and radiometer rainfall anomalies.
The radiometer products consist of the profiling algorithm GPROF (3A12) and the emission
algorithm (3A11). Time series corresponds to oceanic rainfall between 36°N and 36°S.

form nature or whether the scene corresponds to deepor shallow convection. This information is then used, in
conjunction with appropriate parameterizations, to better constrain what the vertical rain profile or its horizontal inhomogeneity might be. As such, these methods
can reduce the uncertainty at the pixel level, but only atthe expense of additional assumptions and parameterizations that must themselves be validated if a complete
error model is to be generated.
An even more complex family of algorithms is theBayesian approaches that employ cloud resolving models (CRMs). These algorithms are described by a number of authors (e.g., Mugnai et al. 1993; Kummerow and
Giglio 1994; Smith et al. 1994; Marzano et al. 1999;
Bauer 2001; Kummerow et al. 2001). In these methods,
the CRM outputs are coupled with radiative transfer
calculations to construct a priori databases of satellite
observables along with the cloud model hydrometeor
fields. A Bayesian or probabilistic approach is thenused to compute the most likely a posteriori distribution when constrained by the actual measurements. Unlike the previous multifrequency approaches, theseschemes can make direct use of explicit physical mechanisms contained in the CRMs to link satellite observables to the rain structure. The disadvantage of theseapproaches is their susceptibility to errors in the a priori
database in terms of the accuracy of the microphysicaldetails provided by the CRM (e.g., Panegrossi et al.
1998), the completeness of the CRM databases, and thefidelity with which the model outputs capture differences in climate regimes. These climate regime biases
can be difficult to observe at individual validation sites
because of the large random noise associated with individual clouds. They are, however, critical to understanding climate signals and trends.
One apparent manifestation of these biases is thesystematic difference in the retrieved rainfall products
from the TRMM radar and radiometers during El
Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) periods (Berg et al.
2002). During ENSO both the emission scheme(TRMM 3A11; Wilheit et al. 1991) and the cloud model–based Bayesian scheme (TRMM 2A12; described inKummerow et al. 2001) show marked increases in tropical oceanic precipitation that are not seen by the
TRMM radar (Robertson et al. 2003). It is unlikely thatthe differences are the result of simple radiometer algorithm artifacts because both the “emission”-based algorithm and the Bayesian schemes show amazingly
consistent climate rainfall trends despite the different
formulations and large differences at individual storm
scales. Figure 1 shows a time series of the two TRMM
radiometric algorithms and the TRMM radar (2A25)
rainfall for tropical oceans.
Figure 1, in addition to revealing the rainfall trends
observed by the TRMM radar and radiometer algorithms, also highlights the difficulties associated withvalidating rainfall products. The average oceanic rainfall from the two radiometeric algorithms shown in Fig.

JANUARY 2006

25

KUMMEROW ET AL.

1 differs by only 0.06 mm day⫺1. This corresponds toroughly 4% of their mean values. The difference between radar and radiometer rainfall during the ENSO
event of 1997/98 is only 7% of the average mean global
rainfall. At the global scale, represented by Fig. 1, these
4%–7% differences can be quite significant. Thesesame differences, however, are much smaller than the
10%–15% regional differences known to exist between
these products and are still smaller than most directcomparisons between satellite- and ground-based observations.
Despite the above difficulties related to the validation of rainfall products, it is clear that algorithms designed for the future must be able to fully characterize
uncertainties at any space and time scale being considered by the users. This ranges from instantaneous estimates needed for many hydrologic and weather forecasting applications to large space and time averages
required for climate model verification and climate
trend monitoring. While the need for a full descriptionof uncertainties is perhaps self-evident, such a complete
error characterization does not currently exist. This paper describes an algorithm designed to quantify theseboth instantaneous as well as systematic errors at
longer time and space scales. To focus on errors, thealgorithm itself has been kept extraordinarily simple,
and as such is not intended to replace any of the operational rainfall algorithms. For the time being, thealgorithm is also limited to oceanic areas.
With these simplifications, one may legitimately ask
whether such a scheme is appropriate to understanduncertainties in the more complex algorithms, such as
the Goddard profiling algorithm (GPROF). While
there is certainly some information that can be gleaned
from this study, it is premature to answer this question
fully. The true answer, however, may not lie in developing error models to fully account for all error sourcesin the already complex algorithms, but may lie equallyin a simpler algorithm such as the one described here,
whose sophistication is only increased when an error
model can be simultaneously constructed.

2. Algorithm framework
Conceptually, all physically based algorithms begin
by computing radiances that would be observed from agiven cloud structure. These theoretically computed radiances (Tb) are then inverted to obtain the surface
rainfall corresponding to an observed radiance field.
Unfortunately, this first step is already fraught with difficulties because a typical rainfall cloud has many more
free parameters than can reasonably be modeled, letalone retrieved. Additional constraints are needed. The

different methods used to introduce these constraints,
or a priori information, effectively describe the algorithms discussed in the previous section. Nonetheless,one can write the forward problem in symbolic form,
Tb ⫽ f 共r, ␷i, ci兲,共1兲

where Tb can be a single brightness temperature or
combination of channels, r is the surface rainfall that isbeing retrieved, ␷i is cloud and environmental parameters that one explicitly allows to vary in the forward
model, and ci is the cloud and environmental parameters that one chooses to keep fixed. One can also haveparameterizations, such as coupling the vertical liquidwater profile to the surface rainfall, but insofar as sucha parameterization is explicit, only the rainfall ratewould be considered a variable in this symbolic notation.
Within this framework, it would appear logical tochoose, in addition to the surface rainfall, parametersthat strongly affect the Tb, as do the variables in
Eq. (1), while keeping the remaining parameters constant. This is done in the Wilheit et al. (1991) scheme.
The freezing level is an assumed variable because of its
strong effect on determining the column-integrated
water and thus upwelling Tb. All other variables are
kept fixed or are parameterized as a function of thesurface rainfall and freezing level. The main advantageof the scheme is its simplicity. This simplicity, however,also implies that the algorithm has no mechanism toaccount for different storm structures that may be observed.
In contrast to this simple scheme described above,
GPROF (Kummerow et al. 2001) uses CRMs to construct a database of a priori precipitating clouds that
may be seen by the satellite. In this case, because eachprofile is a unique entity with all parameters describedby the CRM, the profile itself must be considered avariable. The specific characteristics of each profile represent the constant terms in Eq. (1). The main problem
with this scheme is that there is no guarantee that thevariables (CRM profiles) fully characterize the observed space of profiles and that the constant terms (theprofile characteristics) are correct. The first problem isgenerally referred to as the completeness problem. The
latter is related to errors in the CRMs themselves andcan be referred to as the correctness problem. In short,the GPROF scheme avoids the lack of flexibility that isinherent to the simple emission schemes. In exchange,
however, it introduces two assumptions—the completeness and the correctness of the CRM profiles—that areboth very difficult to validate.

26

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY

The error algorithm
The error algorithm described here is a hybrid between the simple emission scheme described by Wilheit
et al. (1991) and GPROF, which is a cloud model–based
Bayesian scheme described by Kummerow et al. (2001).
It uses the simple physical relation between observed
increases in the 19-GHz Tb, but in the statisticalframework of GPROF in order to take advantage ofthe simple uncertainty model afforded by that scheme.
Unlike GPROF, however, the a priori database isconstructed directly from the TRMM precipitation
radar (PR) rainfall product (Iguchi et al. 2000), version
5. To the extent that the TRMM PR captures spatial
and temporal changes in cloud properties, these variations in the a priori database can be explicitly examined. Experiments described in section 3 demonstratethat this procedure also eliminates the “completeness”
problem. The “correctness” problem is not eliminatedby this a priori database, but a careful analysis ofpotential errors in the TRMM PR products used toconstruct the database allows these errors to be quantified.
Construction of the a priori database begins by identifying 7 ⫻ 11 TRMM PR pixels that fully encompass
the 19-GHz field of view (FOV) corresponding to the51st and 54th TMI pixels along each scan line. Thesepixels were selected in order to remain near the centerof the scan (where TRMM PR vertical resolution is
optimal), while avoiding the excessive overlap of the
52nd and 53rd pixel positions. A mean brightband
height is identified within each TMI FOV by averaging
brightband height information provided by the PR pixels within the 19-GHz FOV. If no PR pixel contains abright band, the search area is expanded successively to
17 ⫻ 21, 27 ⫻ 31, and finally 49 ⫻ 51 PR pixels. If nobright band is found, a climatological brightband heightis assigned to these pixels based upon the observed sea
surface temperature. Only 7% of the rain falls in thiscategory.
The vertical rain profile is taken from the TRMM PR
standard rainfall product. The rain rate is considered
liquid from the surface to three layers (750 m) below
the layer containing the bright band, while snow is considered from the top of the reflectivity profile to one
layer (250 m) above the layer in which the bright band
was found. These definitions are consistent with the
TRMM PR rain algorithm. Between the rain and snow
layers, there are four TRMM PR layers that may contain the bright band itself. The TRMM PR rainfall inthese layers is not used because they may be contaminated by the bright band itself. Instead, this region isfilled by linearly interpolating the liquid and snow-

VOLUME 23

water content within the melting layer. No partiallymelted particles are considered.
The relations needed to convert rain rate to liquidand snow-water content from the TRMM PR rainfall
product can be reconstructed from relations presented
by Iguchi et al. (2000) and Masunaga et al. (2002). Instead of the five separate levels described in those studies, only the lowest level (for liquid) and highest level(for snow) discussed in those studies are used here.
Specifically, the relations for convective and stratiform rain (as defined in the standard TRMM PR products) are Mconv,liq. ⫽ 0.074 R0.87, Mstrat,liq. ⫽ 0.064 R0.89,
Mconv,snow ⫽ 0.217 R0.91, and Mstrat,snow ⫽ 0.196 R0.92.
While the operational TRMM PR algorithm adjusts
these relationships when the path-integrated attenuation (PIA) derived from the PR is deemed reliable, thisadjustment is not done here in order to keep the relations as simple as possible. The “others” category defined by the TRMM PR algorithm has the same coefficients as the convective rain for these two levels and isthus treated as convection. The above technique placeshydrometeors in 250-m layers in each of the 7 ⫻ 11columns of the TRMM PR. For computational efficiency, and because of the lack of sensitivity of the
19-GHz radiances to small ice, the hydrometeor profiles are only extended to 40 layers (10 km) above thesurface.
In addition to the hydrometeor concentrations, surface conditions as well as any cloud water and water
vapor must be specified in order to simulate the upwelling radiances. The sea surface temperature (SST)
was taken from the 3-day-averaged SST available from
Remote Sensing Systems (see information online at
http://www.ssmi.com). Wind speed was also obtained
from the 3-day-averaged surface wind computed by Remote Sensing Systems. While the wind field is not directly related to the wind during the time of the precipitation event, it should provide a realistic distribution of surface winds. The remaining parameters
needed for the atmospheric model are all assumed constant and are supplied by the algorithm. The temperature profile is assumed to follow a constant lapse rate of
6 K km⫺1 using the layer above the bright band [freezing level (FL)] as the 0°C isotherm. Pressure is computed using the hydrostatic equation with the surfacepressure set at 1013 mb. Cloud water and water vapor
are assigned based upon the pixels’ rain status. If the
pixel is raining, 0.5 kg m⫺2 of cloud water is assigned tothe pixel. Following Wilheit (1986), the cloud water isdistributed in the two layers (500 m) below the freezing
level. If the pixel is not raining, but is adjacent to rain,
0.2 kg m⫺2 of cloud water are assigned and distributed
as before. The remaining pixels are assigned no cloudJANUARY 2006

KUMMEROW ET AL.

27

FIG. 2. Statistics of computed minus observed Tb, defined as Tb19V ⫺ Tb19H, for all database
pixels created from Dec 1999 data. The height of the vertical bars corresponds to the standard
deviation about the mean, while the width of the bars represents the relative contribution ofeach rain rate interval to the total rain. The rainfall for each pixel is taken to be the TRMM
PR surface rainfall.

water. The relative humidity follows the cloud water
scheme. It is assumed 80% at the surface, increasing to
100% in the cloud layer and then decreasing 10% km⫺1
above the freezing level. When no clouds are present,
the relative humidity is kept constant at 80% up to thefreezing level and then decreases by 10% km⫺1 as withthe raining pixels.
The above profiles (at TRMM PR spatial resolution)
are used to compute brightness temperatures using the
Eddington approximation (Kummerow 1993). In the
Eddington solution, diffuse radiances are computed
first. Plane-parallel theory is used for this. The planeparallel diffuse radiance is then used in conjunction
with a ray-tracing method to account for the actual geometry of the cloud. This solution is generally referred
to as the slant-path approximation. While not exact, thetechnique captures the horizontal variability quite well
(Roberti et al. 1994). The Tbs computed at the TRMM
PR resolution (⬃4 km) are then convolved with the
TMI antenna gain functions to obtain the TMI 19-GHz
computed brightness temperatures. In a slight deviationfrom the Wilheit et al. (1991) scheme, the current algorithm uses the Tb difference at 19 GHz (i.e., Tb ⫽Tb19V ⫺ Tb19H) to ensure that the function is always
monotonic.

Differences between observed and computed Tbs
can now be compared and are shown in Fig. 2 as afunction of rainfall rate (as given by the TRMM PR).
Ideally, Fig. 2 should be a horizontal line with zero bias
and small random variations. This, however, would
only be true if all of the assumptions stated earlier are
correct and the TRMM PR rainfall is fully consistent
with TMI observations. This is clearly not the case, withdeviations up to 5 K for the lightest rain-rate bin. For
low FOV-averaged rainfall rates (less than 0.25 mmh⫺1), TRMM PR rainfall is not sufficient to significantly alter the Tb. The cloud water and water vapor
assumptions appear to lead to excess attenuation that inturn leads to lower computed than observed Tb. Differences could also be attributed to a bias in the windspeed that must be interpolated from nearby rain-freepixels. At moderate rainfall rates (0.25–4 mm h⫺1), theobserved Tb indicate more attenuation than the computed Tb. This could be a result of insufficient cloudwater and water vapor, or the result of neglecting melting hydrometeors. It could also be attributed to an underestimation of rainfall by the TRMM radar. The bias
reverses again for very high FOV-averaged rainfall(⬎32 mm h⫺1), which could be because of an overestimation of rainfall by the TRMM PR but may also be

28

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY

caused by some ice scattering effects at these high rainfall rates.
Assumptions could be changed to achieve better
agreement between computed and observed Tbs. Because there are virtually no data to constrain the assumptions, however, they were not modified and the apriori database was constructed with the stated assumptions for nonraining parameters as well as TRMM PR
rainfall. Three months, December 1999, January 2000,
and February 2000 (henceforth called DJF 1999–2000),
were used to construct the a priori database used formost of this study. To look at temporal changes, two
additional databases covering DJF 1997–98 and DJF
1998–99 were constructed to contrast the weak La Niña
year (1999–2000) with strong El Niño (1997–98) and
La Niña (1998–99) years. Using only two TMI pixels
per scan, each DJF period generates approximately
650 000 raining profiles for use in the database.
In addition to the raining pixels in the database, asecond database is created to determine the probabilityof rain for each pixel as a function of Tb and SST. For
simplicity, the present scheme uses observed Tb in conjunction with TRMM PR-determined rain/no-rain information to construct this database with 1-K intervals
in both Tb and SST.
The retrieval algorithm itself is straightforward. For
each observed Tb and SST, the rain/no-rain database is
searched first to establish the probability of whether the
pixel is raining. If rain is possible, the raining databaseis searched to find all entries having Tb and SST within
2.2 and 3 K, respectively. All entries within this interval
are given equal weight in the final solution. The 2.2-K
uncertainty in Tb is made up of an uncertainty of 1 K
for the sensor noise and 2 K for uncertainties in theradiative transfer computations. The latter is consistent
with radiative transfer uncertainties at 19 GHz presented in Smith et al. (2002). A 3-K uncertainty wasused for SST because it comes from a 3-day averagerather than the pixel itself. Results showed very little
sensitivity if uncertainties were changed by ⫾1 K for
either parameter.
Figures 3a and 3b compare the resulting rainfall accumulations from the above algorithm for December
1999 with the latest operational version of the GPROF
algorithm [version 6 (V6)] being utilized by the TRMM
project. Both rainfall and rain/no-rain databases fromthe same time period were used in the retrieval. The
corresponding zonal mean rain accumulations areshown in Fig. 3c. As can be seen, there is generally good
agreement in the Tropics but the error algorithm produces more rain outside of 30° latitude, particularly in
the Southern Hemisphere. This leads to somewhat

VOLUME 23

greater overall accumulations (2.76 mm day⫺1 for theerror algorithm versus 2.60 mm day⫺1 for GPROF V6).
This example is used merely to illustrate that reasonable monthly rainfall accumulations can be obtained
from this simple 19-GHz emission algorithm. Little
weight should be given to the overall agreement withthe operational algorithm because the absolute magnitude of the error algorithm can be modified through thesomewhat arbitrary assumptions related to cloud water,water vapor, the melting level, and drop size distribution (DSD) assumptions detailed in the previous section.

3. Algorithm uncertainties
The motivation of the above algorithm, as stated earlier, was not to develop yet another rainfall product, but
to instead develop a simple algorithm that is amenable
to the development of a complete error model. Given
the complexities of such an error model, a simple algorithm is convenient. To that end, the probabilistic methodology selected for the algorithm can immediately be
used to derive the uncertainty related to the inversion
methodology. Statistics, which reflect the variability ofsolutions found within the 2.2-K rms specified in the
retrieval as a function of the retrieved surface rainfall,
are presented in Fig. 4. The rainfall is again based on
December 1999 TMI data. For this figure, the 3-month
database for DJF 1999–2000 was used. The rain rate is
the conditional rain rate. The probability of rain foreach rain-rate interval is therefore also presented.
Uncertainties, as a percent of rainfall, are generally
greatest for low rainfall rates as seen in Fig. 4. At theselight rainfall rates, the Tb signal at 19 GHz is very weakand can be confused with uncertainty in the observed
Tb or SST. Minimum uncertainties are found in the
2–10 mm h⫺1 range. Above 10 mm h⫺1, uncertainties
again increase because of saturation of the Tb signal.
Relatively little rain (⬍18%) falls at this high rain-ratecategory. These results are consistent with the random
errors reported by L’Ecuyer and Stephens (2002), for
the TRMM operational algorithm.
The inversion uncertainties are easily computed in astatistical algorithm framework. They are, unfortunately, not the only error sources. Errors in the a priori
database itself cannot be ignored. These errors result
when the a priori database is either not correct, notcomplete, or contains spatial and/or temporal variability that cannot be resolved by the algorithm itself.
These sources of uncertainty are treated individually inthe following subsections. The final source of uncertainty, addressed in section 3d, is the result of algorithm
formulation errors. This category consists of any errors

JANUARY 2006

KUMMEROW ET AL.

FIG. 3. Comparison between (a) the TRMM operational GPROF radiometer product (3A12), and (b) the current
error algorithm applied to Dec 1999 with the DJF 1999–2000 database. (c) Zonal mean rain accumulations for thetwo products.

29

30

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGYVOLUME 23

FIG. 4. Inversion uncertainties related to the nonuniqueness in the Tb to rainfall relation.
The uncertainties are conditional upon the pixel having rain. The average probability is also
shown between 0% and 100%, with values labeled on the right side of the plot.

that could exist in the code itself, any errors in theassignment of assumed parameters discussed in section
2, as well as the constant formulation of parameters that
may have large space/time variability in nature. Thesecannot be quantified by the satellite and require independent validation data. While this is beyond the scopeof this paper, a discussion aimed at defining an approach to evaluating these potential errors is nonetheless included in section 3d.

a. Correctness of the a priori database
The TRMM PR operational rainfall product (2A25,
version 5) was used to construct rainfall profiles. These,
along with some constant parameters defined in section
2, plus radiative transfer computation, were used to create the a priori database. The constant parameters described in section 2 are intended to represent mean
assumptions. Here, the uncertainties introduced by imperfect TRMM PR data are examined.
Ideally, one would run the TRMM PR operationalalgorithm with various DSD assumptions to assess theextent to which the mean TRMM PR rainfall results are
uncertain. Because of the complexity of the operational
TRMM PR algorithm, however, this proved unfeasible.
Instead, this section examines the sensitivity of the current retrieval algorithm to systematic changes in the
TRMM PR output. Because any errors in the shape ofthe rain profile must be coupled to the integrated liquidwater retrieved by the TRMM PR through the DSD
assumption, however, sensitivity tests were only conducted to quantify the changes in the retrieved rainfall
as a function of changes in the integrated TRMM PR
rainwater content. To first order, this is intended torepresent changes in the retrieved profile if DSDs could
be changed. This procedure, while far from perfect, isnonetheless illustrative for this first attempt at constructing a complete error model. December 1999 wasused to construct the baseline and modified databases
used in these experiments. This represents approximately 220 000 raining pixels. December 1999 was also
used to assess the retrieval sensitivity.
For these experiments, the TRMM PR rainfall is
modified throughout the rain column by a fixed percentage in the range of ⫾20%. This is a reasonable
uncertainty in the global products dictated by the global
mean energy budget uncertainties (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997). Table 1 lists the results from these experiments as a percentage of change from the baseline algorithm. If the percentage remains near 0%, then there
is no sensitivity to errors in the a priori rainfall rateprescribed by the TRMM PR. If the percentage follows
the percentage change in the TRMM PR product, thenthe algorithm has no skill and simply reproduces any
errors in the a priori database. The five rain-rate categories shown in Table 1 were selected to each contain

JANUARY 2006

31

KUMMEROW ET AL.

TABLE 1. Net bias in retrieved rainfall resulting from specified error in the TRMM PR volumetric rainfall.

⬍1 mm h⫺1
1–3 mm h⫺1
3–6 mm h⫺1
6–10 mm h⫺1⬎10 mm h⫺1
Total

Percent
rain

TRMM PR ⫹ 20%

TRMM PR ⫹ 10%

TRMM
PR

TRMM PR ⫺ 10%

TRMM PR ⫺ 20%

20.3
20.2
22.7
19.1
17.6
100.0

⫹6.1%
⫹3.7%
⫹2.6%
⫹3.9%
⫹6.1%
⫹4.3%

⫹3.2%
⫹2.1%
⫹1.1%
⫹2.5%
⫹2.4%
⫹2.1%

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

⫺3.2%
⫺2.4%
⫺2.1%
⫺2.9%
⫺0.3%
⫺2.1%

⫺6.6%
⫺5.3%
⫺3.5%
⫺7.4%
⫹0.6%
⫺4.6%

approximately 20% of the total rainfall. The exact fractions are provided in the table.
Results from Table 1 indicate that the uncertainty inthe radiometer algorithm is approximately 22% of theuncertainty in the TRMM PR rainfall, or 5% for an
uncertainty of about 20% in the TRMM PR global
mean rainfall. This uncertainty comes primarily fromlow rainfall rates where the 19-GHz channels appear
insensitive to actual changes in the rain. A future refinement of the algorithm could use higher frequencies
as proposed by Hong et al. (1997) to reduce this sensitivity to uncertainties in light rainfall. Here, however,
the aim is not to immediately improve the algorithm,
but rather to explicitly quantify the uncertainties of thecurrent formulation. A 5% uncertainty is therefore
used for database correctness issues.

b. Completeness of the a priori database
Incomplete databases have long been speculated to
be a significant source of uncertainty in retrieval
schemes relying on CRMs for their a priori databases.
These cloud models are difficult to run and to date only
a handful of state-of-the-art simulations are available
for retrieval algorithms (Kummerow et al. 2001). Because the TRMM PR-generated databases can be madeextremely large, this source of uncertainty can be investigated directly for the error algorithm consideredhere. Comparisons with progressively smaller databasesubsets suggests that results are stable to the 1% level
down to approximately 2000 entries when compared tothe benchmark database from DJF 1999–2000, containing 666 713 entries.
An alternative approach to assessing database completeness is to evaluate the expected uncertainty resulting from a finite number of database entries that matcha given set of observations. The best estimate for rainfall is given by the mean value of all database entries
fitting the observations (Tb and SST in the baseline
error algorithm). The retrieval uncertainty, or standard
deviation ␴inversion, is simply the average deviation of
the individual database entries fitting the observation
vector. Likewise, the average uncertainty in the final

solution, the standard deviation of the mean, is simply
given by ␴inversion/(n)1⁄2, where n is the total number of
database entries that match the observation vector. As
a way of illustrating this result, a pixel with a Tb of 30 K
and an SST of 300 K is considered. The uncertainty inthe input variables is, as before, namely ⫾2.5 K for the
Tb and ⫾3 K for the SST. Using the full database for
December 1999, the retrieval yields 3.15 ⫾ 1.38 mm h⫺1,having found 10 152 database entries that match theobservation vector within the specified uncertainty.
The retrieval uncertainty is 44%. If database completeness errors of less than 1% are sought for this pixel,
then approximately 2000 (i.e., 442) database entries fitting the above observations are required in this example. At the 10% level, only 20 observations areneeded. Results from a retrieval using subsets of thecomplete database are shown in Table 2 to confirm
these predictions.
The mean and standard deviation of the retrieved
rainfall begin to deviate by approximately 1% as thenumber of database entries fitting the observations decreases to 2550 in agreement with the predictions. Errors increase to 10% for somewhat fewer than 40 database entries, also in general agreement with predictions.
Database completeness errors are well below the 1%
threshold for the algorithm presented here. They could
TABLE 2. Sensitivity of retrieved rainfall as a function of
database entries matching a set of observations.

Database
entriesMatching entries(Tb ⫽ 30 ⫾ 2.5 K;
SST ⫽ 300 ⫾ 3 K)

Rainfall(mm h⫺1)

666 713333 356
166 679
83 33941 66920 834
10 417
5208
2604
1302

10.152
5128
2550
1256
605
294
148
86
43
22

3.15 ⫾ 1.38
3.15 ⫾ 1.38
3.15 ⫾ 1.41
3.17 ⫾ 1.38
3.13 ⫾ 1.41
3.09 ⫾ 1.49
3.11 ⫾ 1.45
3.23 ⫾ 1.68
3.42 ⫾ 2.03
3.86 ⫾ 2.67

32

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGYVOLUME 23

FIG. 5. Zonal mean rainfall accumulation for Dec 1999 using three distinct databases created for DJF
1997–98, 1998–99, and 1999–2000. (a) Uses the corresponding rain/no-rain lookup tables created for eachof the time periods; (b) uses the rain/no-rain lookup table from DJF 1999–2000 for all three retrievals.

become important, however, if the algorithm is modified to include additional constraints. In addition, thereis the possibility that the TRMM PR solutions used toconstruct the a priori database do not fully cover therange of possible solutions. Because the lower threshold of the TRMM PR (0.5 mm h⫺1) is very low when
averaged over the much larger radiometer FOV, andthe upper threshold of the TRMM PR (when the echo
is completely attenuated) has not occurred in the
TRMM data, these issues were considered unimportantin this study. In the next section, an additional spatialconstraint is added to test the algorithm’s sensitivity tospatial variations in the a priori database. Additional
constraints can also be added if additional Tbs, or geophysical parameters, such as the wind speed or freezing
level, are added as part of the observation vector.

c. Space/time dependence of the a priori database
Random errors related to the inversion can be reduced by standard statistical methods when space andtime averages are considered and errors are assumed
uncorrelated. Errors, however, are not uncorrelated.

Indeed, Fig. 1 clearly identifies temporal biases acrossthe Pacific that could not exist if all errors were assumed random. Instead, Fig. 1 suggests that cloud properties change systematically across the Pacific basin as afunction of still uncertain regime changes.
The sensitivity of the error algorithm to regional andtemporal changes in cloud properties can be investigated by constructing independent databases for separate time periods and locations. Ideally, the retrieval
would be insensitive to the details of when and where
the database was created as long as it has enough entries to represent a stable solution. The first experiment, therefore, is to compare the rainfall retrieved for
December 1999 from three distinct databases corresponding to DJF 1997–98, 1998–99, and 1999–2000, respectively. Because each database is associated with arain probability lookup table from its own time period,
the sensitivity of the retrieval to changes in these tables
is also examined. Figure 5a shows zonal mean rainfall
accumulations using the three distinct databases with
their corresponding rain probability tables. The El
Niño database (DJF 1997–98) yields only 74.9 mm

JANUARY 2006

KUMMEROW ET AL.

month⫺1 for December 1999, while the La Niña database yields 83.0 mm and the reference database (DJF
1999–2000) yields 88.7 mm as before. Based upon thisvery limited comparison, the retrieval algorithm can be
assigned an uncertainty on the order of 15% in the
global rainfall resulting from interannual variability of
the cloud population. Figure 5b shows the equivalent
results, but using the DJF 1999–2000 rain probability
lookup table in conjunction with each of the three rain
databases. Results here are somewhat better. The El
Niño database now yields 79.2 mm, while the La Niña
database yields 83.6 mm. The reference is unchangedby this experiment. This represents roughly a 5% reduction in the uncertainty. From this, we estimate thatapproximately 1/3 or 5% of the overall uncertainty is a
result of changes in the rainfall probability table; theremaining 2/3 or 10% are a result of changes in the rain
databases themselves.
To test the algorithm sensitivity to spatially subsetted
databases, the retrieval algorithm is modified slightly.
For this study, additional weight is given to pixels based
upon the physical distance between the location of a
pixel and the location of the database entries that fit theobservations. A Gaussian function with a half-width of2000 km is used to ensure that instabilities are not introduced because of insufficient database entries. The
retrieved rainfall accumulation for December 1999 using the entire DJF 1999–2000 database is 2.77 mm
day⫺1, the regionally constrained retrieval yields 2.68mm day⫺1. The accumulation maps appear quite similar
and are therefore not shown. To highlight the regional
differences, Fig. 6 directly compares the 2.5° ⫻ 2.5°
accumulations from the two methods. Overall, uncertainties resulting from regional variations in the a priori
database lead to approximately 10% uncertainty in themonthly accumulation when compared at a 2.5° gridscale.
Differences of the order of 10%–20% related to spatial and temporal changes in cloud properties are notlimited to the error algorithm described here. Differences of this magnitude and larger are also clearly evident in many of the products compared as part of thethird Precipitation Intercomparison Project (PIP-3)
presented by Adler et al. (2001). In the case of the error
algorithm, however, the source of the regional and temporal variations can be traced directly to the algorithm
formulation. The variable terms in Eq. (1), while notexplicitly enumerated earlier, are related to differencesin TRMM PR-derived rainfall characteristics withineach TMI FOV. These variables are denoted here as“database variables.” Their seasonal and temporalvariations must be responsible for regional and temporal differences in the output product, because all other

33

FIG. 6. Comparison of the retrieved rainfall accumulations for
Dec 1999, using the complete DJF 1997–2000 database vs thesame database but with additional regional constraints. Differences between the two products represent 2.5° areas.

parameters were specifically held constant in the formulation of the error algorithm.
Variations of TRMM PR-derived rainfall within asingle 19-GHz FOV cannot fully be described with only
a few parameters because details of the vertical profileand the relative position of individual TRMM PR pixels
within the larger TMI FOV both affect the upwelling
TMI radiances. Nonetheless, it may be reasonable toassume that variation can be represented by 1) themean FL, defined as the mean height of the layer above
the bright band; 2) the rainfall inhomogeneity (␴R),
computed as the standard deviation of the TRMM PR
rain pixels with the 3-dB gain of the TMI FOV divided
by the mean rainfall in the TMI FOV; 3) the mean slope(slope) of the rainfall profile within the radiometer
FOV as computed by finding the best-fit line passing
through the surface rainfall to the top of the rain only
layer; and 4) the surface wind speed. These four parameters represent the database variables and were added
to the a priori database during its construction. Systematic changes in these properties, which the current algorithm does not independently retrieve, can then be
hypothesized to be responsible for the regional and seasonal changes in the output product.
An illustrative example is used to verify this assertion. A Tb difference of 30 K with an SST of 300 K isused. For this example, the FL is assumed to be 4500 ⫾200 m, the slope is ⫺10 ⫾ 10% km⫺1, and the rainfall
variability is assumed to be 3 ⫾ 0.5. In general, windstatistics do not change much from one region to another at monthly time scales. As such, surface wind

34

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGYTABLE 3. Difference (%) between mean 2.5° rain retrieval using
a global vs a regional database as a function of additional constraints added to the retrieval. “Tropical” refers to latitudes between 15°, while “extratropical” refers to latitudes between 25°
and 30°.
Constraints
Variability

Slope

FL

GlobalTropical

Extratropical

—
Yes
—
—
Yes
Yes
—
Yes

—
—
Yes
—
Yes
—
Yes
Yes

—
—
—
Yes
—
Yes
Yes
Yes

12.0%
6.8%
10.7%
4.0%
6.3%
2.4%
3.5%
2.4%

6.5%
4.2%
5.9%
3.6%
4.2%
2.2%
3.2%
2.2%

19.2%
10.3%
17.3%
4.5%
9.3%
2.5%
3.8%
2.2%

speed is unlikely to cause regional and temporal biases
at these time scales. Unconstraining the wind speed did
not cause errors in excess of 1% for any of the simulations performed. As such, wind is not included to ensure that sufficient database entries were available toobtain robust statistics. The retrieval is run first using
the three DJF databases without additional information
related to the database variables. The unconstrained
retrieval yields 2.62 ⫾ 1.31, 3.00 ⫾ 1.36, and 3.15 ⫾ 1.39
mm h⫺1 for databases constructed from DJF 1997–98,
1998–99, and 1999–2000, respectively. When the retrieval is constrained by the three additional databasevariables presented above, results are 3.21 ⫾ 0.74, 3.26
⫾ 0.67, and 3.23 ⫾ 0.71 mm h⫺1 for the three databases,
respectively. The constrained retrieval is seen to bevery consistent for the three databases, reducing theinterannual variability from approximately 15% for
the unconstrained retrieval to a mere 1%–2% when the
database variables are explicitly supplied to the algorithm. Random errors are also smaller as would be expected for a more highly constrained inversion. As seenin the previous section, however, a larger reference database is also required if stability is to be guaranteed at
the 1% level.
The above experiment can also be performed to assess regional variations in the constrained and unconstrained retrievals. For this experiment, the same geographical constraint as before is used, but 2.5° monthly
accumulations are compared as each database variable
and combination of variables are constrained. The retrieval is run only for TMI pixels that have coincident
radar data, and the constraint is taken directly from
TRMM PR observations. Results are presented inTable 3 for all pixels as well as tropical (⫺15° ⬍ lat ⬍15°) and extratropical (|lat| ⬎ 25°) pixels.
Global results show a mean difference of 12% for theunconstrained retrieval. This is consistent with results

VOLUME 23

shown in Fig. 6. Of the three database variables, knowing the FL is seen to have the greatest impact—
reducing the mean uncertainty to 4.0%. The spatial
variability alone reduces the uncertainty to 7%, whileknowledge of the slope of the rainfall profile seems to
reduce errors only marginally. Combinations of variables show consistent trends. Knowledge of the FL andrainfall variability reduces errors to 2.4%. Adding information on the slope fails to further reduce the uncertainty. In all of these experiments, the effect of therain/no-rain database could be reduced to approximately 1% if SST is assumed known to 1 K.
For the tropical subset, the overall uncertainty is reduced by a factor of 2, but the relative contributions of
the three database variables are quite similar to theglobal results. For the extratropical subset the unknown
FL is seen to be the dominant source of uncertainty.
This is consistent with the expectation that freezing levels are much more variable in the extratropics than they
are in the Tropics.

d. Uncertainties resulting from algorithm
formulation
Up to this point, the errors have focused on uncertainties introduced by inversion methodology as well as
errors in the TRMM PR-derived rainfall, database
completeness issues, and regional and seasonal changes
in the formulation variables. No mention has been
made of errors in the algorithm formulation itself. This
could consist of a poor formulation of any of the assumptions detailed in section 2. Clearly, there is evidence for excess extinction in the bright band (e.g.,
Bauer et al. 2000; Olson et al. 2001; Battaglia et al.
2003) that represents a potential error of omission in
the current formulation. Yet, even a perfect reformulation of the brightband extinction would do nothing to
reduce the uncertainties as examined in any of the previous sections. These additional errors, termed algorithm formulation errors, are included in both the database and inversion, and must therefore be quantified
using independent measurements.
Traditional validation efforts have generally been
limited to long-term comparisons between satellite- andground-based rainfall. Over a sufficiently long time, thisprocedure eliminates the random errors from the comparison. Done indiscriminately, however, such procedures ignore the effect of the database variables, which
can be responsible for 10%–15% regional/seasonal biases explored in the previous section. Instead, it seems
necessary to adopt a physical validation paradigm that
explicitly accounts for the cloud properties at the particular validation site. In this latter paradigm, a criticalJANUARY 2006

KUMMEROW ET AL.

first step is to correctly identify and account for all the
database variables.
In the case of the simple error algorithm presented
here, the database variables can all be observed directly
by TRMM PR. They can, however, also be observed atwell-designed validation sites and added to the retrieval
as additional constraints similar to what was done in theprevious section. Using the validation site to observe
the database variables allows comparisons to be madefor any microwave radiometer instead of just TMI overthe narrow swath that overlaps the TRMM PR sensor.
The constrained algorithm, run at a small number ofvalidation sites, should show only the 2%–3% residual
regional and temporal variability found in the previous
section. Biases beyond 3%, used to denote the accuracyof the constrained retrieval, must then be ascribed either to biases in the PR-derived rainfall, as outlined in
section 3a, or to incorrect values in the constant terms
defined in section 2. If the errors exceed the possible
errors introduced by overall PR biases, then the errors
are labeled as formulation errors.
Because the final error model must include possible
formulation errors, the outlined validation activity isseen as a critical component to this effort. Without it,
only those variables explicitly included in the databasecan be accounted for and the error model loses its
quantitative foundation. Accomplishing this task requires a flexible validation strategy that can measure
the surface rainfall, verify that the uncertainty in the
input data (Tb and SST in the present case) are correctly specified, measure database variables, and observe the constant parameters to see whether residual
errors are larger than the predicted values. While suchan activity is well beyond the scope of this paper, it ishighlighted in order to stress that a full error model
must indeed account for all sources of error and not
merely those deemed tractable in the algorithm formulation.

4. Summary and conclusions
A very simple microwave radiometer algorithm using
only the Tb difference at 19 GHz (Tb ⫽ Tb19V ⫺Tb19H) and the SST was developed in order to establish
a framework for end-to-end error modeling. In addition
to the inversion uncertainty, three sources of uncertainty were identified related to the a priori databaseused by the retrieval algorithm. The first is the result of
uncertainties in the TRMM PR rainfall used to establish the a priori database ␧database. Results indicated thatthe rain information in the radiometer brightness temperatures could reduce errors in the TRMM PRderived rainfall used in the a priori database by a factor

35

of 4, or approximately 5%, if the TRMM PR is assumed
to be uncertain at the 20% level. A more transparent
TRMM PR rain algorithm that directly couples rain
intensity to the shape of the rain profile through uncertainties in the DSD assumption was discussed as a possible method to verify this result more rigorously.
The second source of uncertainty was related to database completeness issues. It was shown that the algorithm, as formulated for global retrievals, should haveno discernable errors resulting from the database size if
the reference database is used. The completeness error
␧complete can safely be set to zero in the case that each
DJF database contains approximately 600 000 entries.
If the algorithm is modified to include additional input
data, or the uncertainty in the input data is reduced, thecompleteness issues can be reexamined consideringboth the inversion uncertainty as well as the number of
entries found in the database for any specific set of
input parameters.
The third source of errors was related to the temporal and regional variations in the a priori database thatwere not resolved by the retrieval algorithm. These errors were defined as ␧space/time, and were found to beapproximately 15% for temporal variations and 10%
for regional variations examined at 2.5° resolution. Because the temporal variations were quantified using
DJF for an El Niño, a La Niña, and a weak La Niña
year, the seasonal variability is likely to represent an
upper bound. The regional variability, examined using
a composite DJF 1997–2000 database showed an additional 10% uncertainty. Together, these two terms may
be estimated to contribute 25% uncertainty to the overall solution. It was shown that better constraints on
SST, rain variability, and FL could be used to reduce
this number quite significantly. Algorithms developed
specifically to retrieve the FL, such as that developed
by Wilheit et al. (1991), could be used to reduce thecurrent uncertainty.
Finally, possible algorithm formulation errors wereconsidered. These errors ␧formulation were not quantified
here because they required independent validation data
for which the TRMM PR sensor cannot be used. Instead, a physical validation paradigm was outlined that
explicitly accounts for the database variables before averaging satellite and ground observations.
As long as the error sources are assumed independent, it is relatively straightforward to sum the different
sources into a final uncertainty,
␧total ⫽ 关共N⫺1Ⲑ2␧inversion兲2 ⫹ 共␧correctness兲2 ⫹ 共␧concept兲2⫹ 共␧spaceⲐtime兲2 ⫹ 共␧formulation兲2兴0.5,

36

JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY

where N is the number of independent samples used inany rain accumulation. Clearly, the inversion errors will
dominate any uncertainties at the pixel level. Unlessthe formulation errors turn out to be comparable to therandom errors, the latter may be used as a good estimate of the total error. At time and space scales thatare important for climate studies, the number of independent pixels N becomes large and the inversion errors disappear. If the algorithm is again assumed tohave no formulation errors, then the measurement uncertainty for monthly rain accumulations over 2.5°
areas can be estimated from ␧correctness ⫽ 5% and␧space/time ⫽ 25%. This yields a total error of ␧total ⫽26%, which is of course very large for uncertainties
related to climate scales. The large value, however, isperhaps simply a reflection of the simple algorithm
used here. At intermediate space and time scales, additional information regarding the time and space correlations of the variable parameters will be necessary toestimate the true number of independent samples.
These, and already mentioned issues and complexities
raised in the paper, however, make it clear that significant additional effort will be required before error
modeling achieves the same maturity as retrieval algorithms have. This work is ongoing.
Acknowledgments. The authors wish to thank the
many individuals who have provided continuous feedback as the ideas presented here have evolved. In particular, we thank Drs. Thomas Wilheit and Toshio Iguchi for many discussions on the details related to error
modeling physical validation. This work was supportedby NASA through TRMM Grant NAG5-13694 and
AMSR Grant NNG-04 H245G. Sea surface wind speed
and SST data were produced by Remote Sensing Systems and sponsored by the NASA Earth Science
REASoN DISCOVER project.
REFERENCES
Adler, R. F., C. Kidd, G. Petty, M. Morissey, and M. H. Goodman, 2001: Intercomparison of global precipitation products:
The third Precipitation Intercomparison Project (PIP-3).
Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 82, 1377–1396.
Aonashi, K., and G. Liu, 2000: Passive microwave precipitation
retrievals using TMI during the Baiu period of 1998. Part I:
Algorithm description and validation. J. Appl. Meteor., 39,
2024–2037.
Battaglia, A., C. Kummerow, D.-B. Shin, and C. Williams, 2003:
Constraining microwave brightness temperatures by radar
brightband observations. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 20,
856–871.
Bauer, P., 2001: Over-ocean rainfall retrieval from multisensor
data of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission. Part I: Design and evaluation of inversion databases. J. Atmos. Oceanic
Technol., 18, 1315–1330.

VOLUME 23——, A. Khain, A. Pokrovsky, R. Meneghini, C. Kummerow, F.
Marzano, and J. P. V. Poiares Baptista, 2000: Combined
cloud–microwave radiative transfer modeling of stratiform
rainfall. J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 1082–1104.
Berg, W., C. Kummerow, and C. A. Morales, 2002: Differences
between east and west Pacific rainfall systems. J. Climate, 15,
3659–3672.
Chang, A. T. C., L. S. Chiu, C. Kummerow, and J. Meng, 1999:
First results of the TRMM microwave imager (TMI) monthly
oceanic rain rate: Comparison with SSM/I. Geophys. Res.
Lett., 26, 2379–2382.
Hong, Y., T. T. Wilheit, and W. R. Russell, 1997: Estimation ofmonthly rainfall over oceans from truncated rain-rate
samples: Applications to SSM/I data. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 14, 1012–1022.
Iguchi, T., T. Kozu, R. Meneghini, J. Awaka, and K. Okamoto,2000: Rain-profiling algorithm for the TRMM precipitation
radar. J. Appl. Meteor., 39, 2038–2052.
Kiehl, J. T., and K. E. Trenberth, 1997: Earth’s annual global
mean energy budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197–208.
Kummerow, C., 1993: Radiative transfer model comparisons forpassive microwave frequencies. J. Geophys. Res., 98, 2757–
2765.
——, and L. Giglio, 1994: A passive microwave technique for
estimating rainfall and vertical structure information fromspace. Part I: Algorithm description. J. Appl. Meteor., 33,
3–18.
——, and Coauthors, 2001: The evolution of the Goddard profiling algorithm (GPROF) for rainfall estimation from passive
microwave sensors. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 1801–1820.
L’Ecuyer, T. S., and G. L. Stephens, 2002: An uncertainty modelfor Bayesian Monte Carlo retrieval algorithms: Application
to the TRMM observing system. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
128, 1713–1737.
Marzano, F. S., A. Mugnai, G. Panegrossi, N. Pierdicca, E. A.
Smith, and J. Turk, 1999: Bayesian estimation of precipitating
cloud parameters from combined measurements of spaceborne microwave radiometer and radar. IEEE Trans. Geosci.
Remote Sens., 37, 596–613.
Masunaga, H., T. Iguchi, R. Oki, and M. Kachi, 2002: Comparisonof rainfall products derived from TRMM microwave imager
and precipitation radar. J. Appl. Meteor., 41, 849–862.
Mugnai, A., E. A. Smith, and G. J. Tripoli, 1993: Foundations forstatistical–physical precipitation retrieval from passive microwave satellite measurements. Part II: Emission-source andgeneralized weighting-function properties of a timedependent cloud-radiation model. J. Appl. Meteor., 32, 17–39.
Olson, W. S., P. Bauer, C. D. Kummerow, Y. Hong, and W.-K.
Tao, 2001: A melting-layer model for passive/active microwave remote sensing applications. Part II: Simulation of
TRMM observations. J. Appl. Meteor., 40, 1164–1179.
Panegrossi, G., and Coauthors, 1998: Use of cloud model microphysics for passive microwave-based precipitation retrieval:Significance of consistency between model and measurement
manifolds. J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 1644–1673.
Petty, G. W., 1994: Physical retrievals of over-ocean rain rate frommultichannel microwave imagery. Part I: Theoretical characteristics of normalized polarization and scattering indices.
Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 54, 79–99.
Roberti, L., J. Haferman, and C. Kummerow, 1994: Microwave
radiative transfer through horizontally inhomogeneous precipitating clouds. J. Geophys. Res., 99, 16 707–16 718.
Robertson, F. R., D. E. Fitzjarrald, and C. D. Kummerow, 2003:

JANUARY 2006

KUMMEROW ET AL.

Effects of uncertainty in TRMM precipitation radar path integrated attenuation on interannual variation of tropical oceanic rainfall. Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1180, doi:10.1029/
2002GL016416.
Smith, E. A., X. Xiang, A. Mugnai, and G. Tripoli, 1994: Designof an inversion-based precipitation profile retrieval algorithm
using an explicit cloud model for initial guess microphysics.
Meteor. Atmos. Phys., 54, 53–78.
——, P. Bauer, F. S. Marzano, C. D. Kummerow, D. McKague, A.

37

Mugnai, and G. Panegrossi, 2002: Intercomparison of microwave radiative transfer models for precipitating clouds.
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 40, 541–549.
Wilheit, T. T., 1986: Some comments on passive microwave measurement of rain. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 67, 1226–1232.
——, A. T. C. Chang, and L. S. Chiu, 1991: Retrieval of monthly
rainfall indices from microwave radiometric measurement using probability distribution functions. J. Atmos. Oceanic
Technol., 8, 118–136.