Tropical rainfall associated with convective and stratiform clouds : Intercomparison of disdrometer and profiler measurements

The motivation for this research is to move in the direction of improved algorithms for the remote sensing of rainfall, which are crucial for meso- and large-scale circulation studies and climate applications through better determinations of precipitation type and latent heating profiles. Toward this end a comparison between two independent techniques, designed to classify precipitation type from 1) a disdrometer and 2) a 915-MHz wind profiler, is presented, based on simultaneous measurements collected at the same site during the Intensive Observing Period of the Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Coupled Ocean‐Atmosphere Response Experiment. Disdrometer-derived quantities such as differences in drop size distribution parameters, particularly the intercept parameter N0 and rainfall rate, were used to classify rainfall as stratiform or convective. At the same time, profiler-derived quantities, namely, Doppler velocity, equivalent reflectivity, and spectral width, from Doppler spectra were used to classify precipitation type in four categories: shallow convective, deep convective, mixed convective‐stratiform, and stratiform. Overall agreement between the two algorithms is found to be reasonable. Given the disdrometer stratiform classification, the mean profile of reflectivity shows a distinct bright band and associated large vertical gradient in Doppler velocity, both indicators of stratiform rain. For the disdrometer convective classification the mean profile of reflectivity lacks a bright band, while the vertical gradient in Doppler velocity below the melting level is opposite to the stratiform case. Given the profiler classifications, in the order shallow‐deep‐mixed‐stratiform, the composite raindrop spectra for a rainfall rate of 5 mm h 21 show an increase in D0, the median volume diameter, consistent with the dominant microphysical processes responsible for drop formation. Nevertheless, the intercomparison does reveal some limitations in the classification methodology utilizing the disdrometer or profiler algorithms in isolation. In particular, 1) the disdrometer stratiform classification includes individual cases in which the vertical profiles appear convective, but these usually occur at times when the disdrometer classification is highly variable; 2) the profiler classification scheme also appears to classify precipitation too frequently as stratiform by including cases that have small vertical Doppler velocity gradients at the melting level but no bright band; and 3) the profiler classification scheme includes a category of mixed (stratiform‐convective) precipitation that has some features in common with deep convection (e.g., enhanced spectral width above the melting level) but other features in common with stratiform precipitation (e.g., well-developed melting layer signature). Comparison of the profiler-derived vertical structure with disdrometer-determined rain rates reveals that almost all cases of rain rates greater than 10 mm h 21 are convective. For rain rates less than 5 mm h21 all four profiler-determined precipitation classes are well represented.