## 1. Introduction

Use of the vertical vorticity equation in the analysis of vertical motion has a long but sporadic history. Dedebant and Wehrlé (1935) and Sawyer (1949) proposed a synoptic-scale procedure now known as the vorticity method to diagnose the vertical velocity from the vertical vorticity equation (combined with mass conservation) and estimates of the vertical vorticity and its tendency. In this procedure, the horizontal divergence of the wind field is fixed by the requirement that the rate of change of vorticity following the horizontal motion of an air parcel is forced by the stretching of absolute vorticity. The procedure has been applied to synoptic-scale analyses of the height field, assuming geostrophy (Riehl et al. 1952; Eliassen and Hubert 1953; Collins and Kuhn 1954; Nash and Chamberlain 1954; Miller and Panofsky 1958; Fuelberg and Funk 1987), and to high-temporal-resolution wind profiler data (Lee and Browning 1994; Lee et al. 1995). Eliassen and Hubert (1953) also briefly considered a mesoscale form of vorticity equation that included vertical advection and tilting terms, and they noted that, if the horizontal winds were regarded as known, the vertical velocity was governed by a first-order linear partial differential equation whose solution could be obtained by the method of characteristics. Mesoscale vertical vorticity equations were later used in vertical velocity analyses by using objectively analyzed upper-air winds in a tropical easterly wave (Yanai and Nitta 1967), horizontal wind data from numerically simulated supercell and microburst-producing storms (Mewes and Shapiro 2002), and dual-Doppler radial wind data in tropical cyclones (Lee et al. 2003, 2006). Several of these synoptic-scale and mesoscale studies suggest that the vorticity methods can be quite sensitive to the temporal resolution of the data.

Only recently, however, have mesoscale vertical vorticity equations been incorporated into multiple-Doppler analyses of all three wind components. In the new approaches, the three wind components are constrained by a vorticity equation, momentum equations, mass conservation equation, radial wind data, and possibly penalty constraints on time and/or space derivatives. Protat and Zawadzki (2000) introduced a wind and thermodynamic retrieval that imposed mass conservation as a strong constraint, the three momentum equations and a mesoscale vertical vorticity equation as weak constraints (approximate, least squares error), a penalty constraint on the time derivatives of the vector wind field, and a linear time interpolation treatment of the observations. The time derivatives were evaluated in a moving reference frame. Although provision for a vorticity equation constraint did not significantly affect the analyzed wind field in tests with radial wind data of a shallow hailstorm sampled by a network of bistatic radars, a markedly improved value of an error-checking parameter indicated that the derivatives of the wind field were improved, thus bolstering confidence in the retrieved thermodynamic fields (both the thermodynamic retrieval and the vorticity equation are derived from the equations of motion). The method was applied by Protat et al. (2001) to a more detailed analysis of that hailstorm. Liu et al. (2005) considered a purely weak-constraint form of wind and thermodynamic retrieval, with each analyzed wind component varying linearly with time, between the start of the first volume scan and the end of the second volume scan, and varying spatially as a product of Legendre polynomial expansions in the three spatial coordinates (as in Scialom and Lemaître 1990). Their tests with numerically simulated data of a supercell storm showed that a mesoscale vertical vorticity equation constraint could significantly improve the accuracy of the retrieved vertical velocity and temperature fields.

In this study, we further explore the utility of the vertical vorticity equation as a constraint in the dual-Doppler analysis of the three wind components. Our focus is on the value added by the vorticity equation in a problem of long-standing interest in the radar and mesoscale meteorology communities: improving the accuracy of vertical velocity estimates, especially in cases of substantial missing low-level data [see discussions on the vertical velocity problem in Mewes and Shapiro (2002) and references therein]. Scan geometries typically dictate that the vertical velocity *w* is the least well observed of the velocity components and is thus the most difficult component to accurately synthesize. In traditional dual-Doppler analysis, a mass conservation equation is imposed along with the requirement that the component of the velocity vector normal to the ground vanish at the ground (impermeability condition). A kinematic storm-top condition is sometimes imposed in place of (or in addition to) this condition. In the general case where the topographic height is given by *z* = *f* (*x*, *y*), the impermeability condition constrains the vertical velocity field at the ground to satisfy *w* = *u*∂*f*/∂*x* + *υ*∂*f*/∂*y* (*u*, *υ*, and *w* are the velocity components associated with the Cartesian coordinates *x*, *y*, and *z*, respectively). In the special case where the ground is flat, this condition reduces to *w* = 0. Unfortunately, because of the earth’s curvature, nonzero elevation angle of the lowest radar beam, ground clutter contamination, and beam blockage, data voids hundreds to thousands of meters thick commonly separate the lower surface of data coverage from the earth’s surface, where the impermeability condition could legitimately be applied. The problem of missing low-level data is especially acute for radars operating in mountainous terrain.

The analysis technique explored here is similar to the weak-constraint variational procedure of Gao et al. (1999), although here a vertical vorticity equation is incorporated into the analysis. The vorticity equation constraint is similar to that of Protat and Zawadzki (2000), Protat et al. (2001), and Liu et al. (2005); although in our procedure, the frozen-turbulence hypothesis is invoked to rewrite the time derivative term (tendency) in terms of spatial derivative terms. Conceptually, this is equivalent to neglecting time derivatives in a moving reference frame.

In the remainder of the paper, we discuss the anelastic vertical vorticity equation and our treatment of its time derivative term (section 2), present the variational wind analysis procedure (section 3), and describe an analytical Beltrami flow solution of the Navier–Stokes equations used to generate pseudo-observations for testing the analysis procedure (section 4). The particular flow considered is a translating temporally decaying array of counterrotating updrafts and downdrafts. The parameter values controlling the pseudo-observations, the characteristics of the virtual radars, the analysis grid, and the weighting coefficients in the analysis procedure are specified in section 5. Results from data denial experiments (missing low-level data) are presented in section 6, with a focus on the length of the analysis time window (radar scan period and number of volume scans). Conclusions follow in section 7.

## 2. Anelastic vertical vorticity equation

*u*and

*υ*are the horizontal velocity components,

*w*is the vertical velocity component,

*ρ*is a height-dependent base-state density, and

_{S}*π*is the perturbation pressure divided by

*ρ*. We omit Coriolis terms in (2) and (3) because the rotation period for the earth is much larger than the time window over which the dual-Doppler analysis is to be performed. Our omission of diffusion/mixing terms in (2) and (3) is less justifiable, but the impact of their omission is mitigated by our use of these equations (or rather the vorticity equation derived from them) as a weak constraint rather than as a strong constraint. In any case, in principle, one may include Coriolis and explicit diffusion/mixing terms in (2) and (3), as in Protat and Zawadzki (2000) or Liu et al. (2005).

_{S}*y*derivative of (2) from the

*x*derivative of (3) yields the vorticity equation

*ζ*(≡∂

*υ*/∂

*x*− ∂

*u*/∂

*y*) is the vertical vorticity. Equation (4) provides a relation between the three velocity components unencumbered by the presence of thermodynamic variables. The absence of baroclinic terms in this equation and their negligibility in other mesoscale vertical vorticity equations were noted in the radar meteorology community many years ago (e.g., Ray 1976; Heymsfield 1978). Although the baroclinic vector is dynamically significant in thunderstorms, density currents, gravity waves, and other mesoscale phenomena, it points mostly in the horizontal and thus serves primarily to generate horizontal vorticity, not vertical vorticity.

*u*at the fixed point are simply due to the passage of an unchanging pattern of turbulent motion over the point … .” This can be quantified as

*U*and

*V*are pattern-translation components. Temporal-discretization errors arising from translation can be mitigated by discretizing the time derivative in a frame of reference moving with the pattern. Objective methods to calculate

*U*,

*V*from radar data include cross-correlation analysis (Zawadzki 1973; Austin and Bellon 1974; Anagnostou and Krajewski 1999) and minimization of a cost function in which a frozen-turbulence constraint is imposed (Gal-Chen 1982; Chong et al. 1983; Shapiro et al. 1995; Caillault and Lemaître 1999; Liou and Luo 2001; Lazarus et al. 2001; Matejka 2002; Caya et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2004; and many others). In contrast, temporal-discretization errors associated with changes in the intensity and/or shape of a pattern (i.e., evolution effects) cannot be mitigated by the use of a moving reference frame.

A second approach to evaluating the time derivative term in (4), one that we apply in this study, is to use (5) to replace the time derivative term with spatial derivative terms. Advantages of this approach are that pattern translation can be accounted for in a fixed reference frame and that the time derivative term can be evaluated with data from only a single volume scan from each radar. However, large errors in the estimation of that term can be expected if evolution effects become important or if the pattern-translation components are poorly estimated.

## 3. Analysis procedure

A weak-constraint variational formalism is applied to the analysis of the Cartesian wind components (*u*, *υ*, *w*) on a Cartesian grid (*x*, *y*, *z*) using radial wind observations from two Doppler radars. In this weak-constraint procedure, we seek analysis wind fields that 1) minimize the squared discrepancies between the observed radial winds and the radial projections of the analysis wind vectors, and 2) approximately satisfy (least squares error sense) mass conservation and vorticity equation constraints. Spatial smoothness penalty terms are also imposed. A cost function *J* accounting for the sum of the squared discrepancies/errors is introduced, and an iterative minimization algorithm is used to obtain the analysis wind fields that minimize *J*. We consider weak constraints rather than strong (exactly satisfied) constraints because the constraining relations have a variety of errors, uncertainties, and limitations associated with them, including temporal-discretization errors and neglect of diffusion/mixing terms in the vorticity equation, spatial-discretization errors in the mass conservation and vorticity equations, observational errors in the radial velocity data, and spatiotemporal interpolation errors in our treatment of the analyzed radial velocity fields. The general framework of weak-constraint analysis is described in Sasaki (1970), Daley (1991), and other standard references. The specific procedure considered here is perhaps most similar to the variational methods of Gao et al. (1999), Protat and Zawadzki (2000), Protat et al. (2001), or Liu et al. (2005), although with some differences in the forms or implementations of some of the constraints.

*t*= 0), they are available (via the frozen-turbulence constraint) for the discrepancy calculation during a time window extending over at least one radar volume scan period. The frozen-turbulence constraint (5) yields functional relations for the analysis wind components

*u*,

^{a}*υ*, and

^{a}*w*as

^{a}*t** at an observation point (

*x**,

*y**,

*z**) is equal to the same analysis wind component evaluated at time 0 at the shifted location (

*x** −

*Ut**,

*y** −

*Vt**,

*z**). A spatial interpolation of the analysis winds from the analysis grid points to the shifted location is performed with a three-dimensional isotropic (spherical) Cressman analysis (Haltiner and Williams 1980).

*x*

_{1},

*y*

_{1},

*z*

_{1}), the projection of the analysis wind vector at an observation point (

*x**,

*y**,

*z**) in the direction of Rad1 is given by

*r*

_{1}is the distance of the observation point from Rad1:

*r*

_{2}, the distance of an observation point from Rad2. The terminal velocity

*w*is included in (7) to account for the mismatch between the air velocity and the velocity of the radar scatterers. Hydrometeor scatterers fall with a vertical velocity component

_{t}*w*relative to the air but are otherwise relatively faithful markers of air motion [see Dowell et al. (2005) and Shapiro (2005) for exceptions and discussions of this point]. The terminal velocity of hydrometeors is commonly parameterized in terms of the radar reflectivity factor (e.g., appendix B of Shapiro et al. 1995).

_{t}*r*

_{1}

^{2}and

*r*

_{2}

^{2}are included in (9) to account for the fact that radial wind observations are not strictly point measurements but represent probe volumes that grow as the square of the distance from the radar. The weights

*λ*

_{O1}and

*λ*

_{O2}, along with other constraint weights, will be treated as constants. A similar observational constraint appears in Gao et al. (1999), Protat and Zawadzki (2000), Protat et al. (2001), and Liu et al. (2005), though in the idealized experiments in Gao et al. (1999) the radial wind observations were considered to be simultaneous, and in Liu et al. (2005) the analyzed winds are brought to the observation time through linear time interpolation rather than through a frozen-turbulence shift.

*ρ*(

_{S}*z*) can be obtained from a nearby sounding or approximated with an exponential function (e.g., Ray et al. 1975; Doviak et al. 1976; Scialom and Lemaître 1990).

In the current analysis procedure, no background wind field constraint is imposed [although our smoothness constraint can be viewed as a kind of background constraint; as shown by Xu (2005), a background term can be expressed as a smoothness penalty term in which a differential operator acts on a field of analysis increments]. Background winds can, in principle, be estimated from conventional surface observations, nearby soundings, forecast fields from a numerical weather prediction model, or winds obtained from traditional single-Doppler radar algorithms such as velocity–azimuth display (VAD), volume velocity processing (VVP; Doviak and Zrnic 1984), or extended VVP approaches (Caya et al. 2002). However, we believe there is sufficient interest in stand-alone dual-Doppler wind analysis techniques to omit such a constraint in our investigation. In any case, should one want to impose such a constraint, it would be a simple matter to account for it (Gao et al. 1999).

In addition to imposing the weak constraints, we also have the option to impose the impermeability condition at ground level (*w* is set to zero at ground level in the experiments in which the impermeability option is activated). Although we have not made provision for the vertical velocity to vanish at storm top, such a modification could be made within the present framework. On the other hand, because vertical velocities at storm top can be substantial in cases of rapid storm development, the decision to impose a storm-top condition may not be straightforward.

*u*,

^{a}*υ*, and

^{a}*w*analysis fields (control variables) that minimize the sum of the constraints described above; that is, to minimize

^{a}*J*, defined by

*w*set to zero at ground level in the subset of experiments in which the impermeability condition is imposed. The relative magnitudes of the weighting coefficients

*λ*

_{O1},

*λ*

_{O2},

*λ*,

_{M}*λ*,

_{V}*λ*

_{S1},

*λ*

_{S2},

*λ*

_{S3}, and

*λ*

_{S4}in (9)–(12) determine the relative importance of the individual constraints in (13). The selection of these weights is an important and challenging aspect of variational analysis (Hoffman 1984). In principle, the weights should be chosen so that the individual terms in the cost function have the same order of magnitude. In practice, however, uncertainties in observation errors and equation errors make such weight estimations difficult. Accordingly, as in Hoffman (1984), Xu et al. (1995, 2001), Gao et al. (1999), and Liu et al. (2005), we view the weights as tuning parameters whose values can be determined through experimentation. A set of values will be deemed acceptable if large changes in those values (say, over a 10-fold range) produce relatively small changes in the most sensitive analysis variable, which is the vertical velocity field.

We minimize *J* with an iterative procedure similar to that of Gao et al. (1999) and Liu et al. (2005). The procedure is initialized with first guesses of zero for all the control variables. During each iteration, provisional values of the control variables are used to calculate *J* and its derivatives with respect to the control variables. The control variables are then updated using the Polak–Ribiere conjugate gradient method (Press et al. 1992). Every 10 iterations, the updated vertical velocity field is compared to the vertical velocity field from the 10th previous iteration. We consider the procedure to have converged when the change in the vertical velocity is less than a prescribed tolerance (0.02 m s^{−1}) at every analysis point. For most of the experiments conducted in this study, about 1000–1500 iterations were sufficient for convergence. Although this number is rather large, our prescribed tolerance is probably much more stringent than one would need in real applications.

## 4. Pseudo-observations: An analytical dataset

The analysis procedure is tested in section 6 with analytical data of a three-dimensional Beltrami flow sampled by two virtual Doppler radars. Beltrami flows are a class of exact solutions of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations in which the vorticity field is aligned with the velocity field (Truesdell 1954; Irmay and Zuzovsky 1970). For the purpose of constructing a flow that offers at least a qualitative resemblance to the motion in deep moist convective systems, we consider the particular Beltrami flow used by Shapiro (1993) in a validation test of the Advanced Regional Prediction System (ARPS), a nonhydrostatic numerical weather prediction model. That flow is characterized by a spatially periodic temporally decaying array of counterrotating updrafts and downdrafts. The flow satisfies the impermeability condition (*w* = 0 at ground level) but satisfies neither the no-slip condition nor the free-slip condition. It is easy to show that the maximum horizontal convergence and divergence of the wind field occur at ground level. Accordingly, in the experiments of section 6, where low-level data are withheld, the largest convergence or divergence signatures do not enter the analysis. These data-denial experiments emulate the common scenario where radars fail to sample strong low-level convergent or divergent flows, for example, at the base of a convective storm updraft, at the leading edge of a density current, in the lower part of a microburst, or in the rear flank downdraft of a supercell.

*x*and

*y*wind components,

*U*and

*V*, respectively. In order for this composite flow to satisfy the Navier–Stokes equations exactly, we replace

*x*and

*y*in the formulas used by Shapiro (1993) by

*x*−

*Ut*and

*y*−

*Vt*, respectively. The resulting flow is given by

*k*,

*l*, and

*m*are the wavenumber components in the

*x*,

*y*, and

*z*directions, respectively, and Λ ≡

*k*

^{2}+

*l*

^{2}+

*m*

^{2}

*A*is the peak vertical velocity. As is evident from the exponential terms, the spatial pattern undergoes a temporal decay with an

*e*-folding decay time of

*T*≡ 1/(

_{e}*ν*Λ

^{2}), where

*ν*is the kinematic viscosity coefficient. If one wanted to consider the artifice of a negative viscosity coefficient, the temporal behavior would be of growth rather than of decay.

Technically, this composite flow is no longer a bona fide Beltrami flow (vorticity vectors are no longer aligned with the velocity vectors), but it does still satisfy the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations exactly. In the interest of brevity, we will still refer to it as a Beltrami flow.

## 5. Parameter settings for pseudo-observation experiments

In this section, we summarize the parameter values used to define the analysis grid, the characteristics of the virtual radars, the specific Beltrami flow used to generate the pseudo-observations, and the errors imposed on the pseudo-observations. Although there are similarities between the analysis and input-data model constraints, there are also important differences that help mitigate an identical twin problem. Attention will be drawn to these differences.

Pseudo-observations are obtained by taking the radial projections of a velocity field satisfying (14)–(16) with a vertical wavelength of 12 km [*m* = 2*π*/(12 km) ≅ 5.24 × 10^{−4} m^{−1}], a wavelength in the *x* and *y* directions of 10 km [*k* = *l* = 2*π*/(10 km) ≅ 6.28 × 10^{−4} m^{−1} and Λ ≅ 1.03 × 10^{−3} m^{−1}], an *e*-folding decay time of *T _{e}* = 10 min, a peak vertical velocity of

*A*= 10 m s

^{−1}, and environmental wind components of

*U*=

*V*= 10 m s

^{−1}. The horizontal wind vectors at the height

*z*= 1 km above ground level (AGL; with the environmental winds subtracted off) are displayed in Fig. 1. The flow at this level is notably divergent/convergent and rotational. The horizontal divergence and vertical vorticity fields obtained from (14) and (15) show that the flow at ground level (

*z*= 0) is purely divergent/convergent, whereas the flow at

*z*= 3 km is purely rotational.

The pseudo-observations are sampled from two virtual radars spaced 40 km apart (Fig. 2). Each radar scans a sequence of 23 elevation angles with a 1.0° elevation angle spacing starting from the lowest elevation angle of 1.1°. The radars scan the same 90°-wide azimuthal sector with 1.0° azimuthal spacing and 200-m-range gate spacing. Experiments are conducted with volume scan periods ranging from 1 to 5 min, although most of the results are presented for the 2-min scan period. In all experiments considered here, the two radars scan in a coordinated manner, with the lowest scans starting at a common time. However, additional experiments with uncoordinated scan strategies (not shown) revealed that the analysis results are not very sensitive to scan time offsets as long as the offsets are small (<1 min).

The analysis domain is a square box (cuboid) with sides of 20-km length in the horizontal, and 6 km in the vertical. The grid spacing is 500 m in the *x*, *y*, and *z* directions. At ground level, the center of the analysis domain is equidistant from the two radars and 20 km north of the radars, which puts the center of the domain about 28 km away from each of the radars (Fig. 2). The radius of influence in the Cressman interpolation step used in the evaluation of *J _{O}* is 500 m.

In all experiments, we take the base-state density to be constant and omit the terminal velocity correction in the data constraint (7). As can readily be shown from scale analysis, the geometric contribution of the terminal velocity correction term to the radial wind is small for small elevation angles [also see discussion in Kropfli and Miller (1976)]. We have further verified that such a term would not be significant in our case by performing an experiment in which the vertical velocity term itself was explicitly set to zero in (7); in this experiment, the retrieved vertical velocity field changed by only a few percent.

*λ*

_{O1}=

*λ*

_{O2}(=

*λ*), and the four smoothness weights are set equal to each other,

_{O}*λ*

_{S1}=

*λ*

_{S2}=

*λ*

_{S3}=

*λ*

_{S4}(=

*λ*). To aid with the tuning process, the weights can be rewritten in terms of products of nondimensional tuning parameters and factors that depend on the number of radar observation points (

_{S}*N*

_{1},

*N*

_{2}), the number of analysis points (

*N*

_{Cart}), and the characteristics of the observed radial wind field [including the spatial gradient (SG) calculated on the observation grid]:

*J*terms in (13) has the same dimensions, and the nondimensional tuning parameters

*C*,

_{O}*C*,

_{M}*C*, and

_{V}*C*control the relative influence of the constraints. The tuning parameters used in the majority of the experiments presented in section 6 were set at

_{S}*C*= 1,

_{O}*C*= 0.1,

_{M}*C*= 7.0 × 10

_{V}^{−4}, and

*C*= 5.6 × 10

_{S}^{−5}. The values of

*C*,

_{O}*C*,

_{M}*C*, and

_{V}*C*were varied from these default settings in a series of sensitivity experiments, which are also described in section 6.

_{S}We ran experiments (not shown) comparing the sensitivity of the retrievals to the presence of the *r* ^{2} factors in (9) and in the expression for *λ _{O}* in (17). Results from experiments in which the

*r*

^{2}factors were excluded differed little from the experiments in which they were retained (differences on the order of 1% for

*w*and 0.25% for

*u*and

*υ*). Presumably, the relatively small size of the analysis grid used in our experiments was a factor in this insensitivity. For all results shown in section 6, these

*r*

^{2}factors were not included.

Once the radial winds are generated, they are contaminated with Gaussian noise based on a polar form of the Box–Muller method (Press et al. 1992). Using this procedure, random observational errors were simulated with magnitudes up to 15% of the true radial wind values (local, not RMS) and with the first standard deviation of the percent error distribution corresponding to 10% of the true radial wind values. As an additional source of error, the values of the *U* and *V* pattern-translation components used in most of the experiments differ systematically from the *U* and *V* used to generate the pseudo-observations by 20% (8 and 12 m s^{−1} compared to 10 and 10 m s^{−1}, respectively). In a few experiments, these systematic errors are increased to 40%.

Although flow evolution is present in the Beltrami pseudo-observations (10-min *e*-folding decay time) but not accounted for in the vorticity constraint, the neglect of both flow evolution and diffusion in the vorticity constraint creates an artificially optimistic situation. This is because Beltrami flows have the unusual property that diffusion of vorticity exactly balances the part of the local derivative associated with flow evolution (the two terms sum to zero in the Beltrami model and are individually zero in our analysis vorticity constraint). However, spatial interpolation errors in the Cressman step; spatial-discretization errors in the mass conservation and vorticity equation constraints; random observational errors; failure to account for flow evolution in the data constraint; and (especially) the systematic errors in *U* and *V*, which impact both the spatial shift of data in the data constraint and the accuracy of the local derivative term in the vorticity constraint, should help counter the identical twin problem in our experiments.

## 6. Results

In the experiments described herein, radial wind pseudo-observations at heights less than 1.5 km AGL are withheld from the analysis. The same data, smoothness, and mass conservation constraints are imposed in all experiments. To allow the impermeability condition to influence the flow in the region of data coverage, the mass conservation and smoothness constraints are used everywhere—even in the regions of missing data. This mode of applying the mass conservation and smoothness constraints was used in all experiments, even in the experiments where the impermeability condition was not imposed. In the experiments in which the vorticity equation constraint is imposed, it is also imposed everywhere. In all experiments, the lowest analysis level is the ground surface (*z* = 0).

The experiments differ primarily in the application of the impermeability condition and in the use of the vorticity equation constraint. In experiment IMP, the impermeability condition is imposed without the vorticity equation constraint. In experiment VORT, the vorticity equation constraint is imposed without the impermeability condition. In experiment IMP + VORT, both the impermeability condition and the vorticity equation constraint are imposed.

As seen in Figs. 3 and 4, the root-mean-square errors (RMSEs) in each of the three wind components are lower at every level in experiment IMP + VORT than in experiment IMP. The improvements are most significant for the vertical velocity component. Evidently the vertical vorticity constraint is providing useful dynamical information in the region of data coverage. Horizontal and vertical cross sections of the vertical velocity field in these experiments (Figs. 5 and 6) show that the intensities of the updrafts and downdrafts are greatly underestimated in experiment IMP. The IMP analysis is unable to recover from the large volume of missing information about the low-altitude convergence and divergence. In contrast, in experiments VORT and IMP + VORT, the dynamical information provided by the vorticity equation in the region of data coverage provides a mechanism to build back the peak magnitudes of the vertical velocity field. Visually, the *w* cross sections in VORT and IMP + VORT are quite similar, but the error plots (Figs. 3 and 4) confirm that IMP + VORT yields slightly better results. Figures 5 and 6 suggest that, although some of the error in the analyzed *w* field in VORT and IMP + VORT is due to the *w* field being slightly too weak (though greatly improved from IMP), most of the error is associated with noisiness in the analyzed field.

An additional set of experiments explored the sensitivity of the procedure to the values of the weighting coefficients. Because the radars were scanning at relatively low elevation angles, the horizontal part of the velocity vector was well sampled but the vertical part was largely unobserved. Accordingly, of the three Cartesian wind components, the vertical component was the most sensitive to changes in the analysis weights. Fortunately, as shown in Table 1, we found a large range of data, mass conservation, and vorticity constraint weights over which even this most sensitive wind component did not change appreciably. The vertical velocity exhibited the greatest sensitivity to the smoothness weight.

Next, a series of experiments was conducted to determine the sensitivity of the analysis to the length of the analysis time window. Figure 7 depicts the relative root-mean-square error in *w* at the 1.5-km level for experiments in which the volume scan time ranges from 1 min (typical of scan periods from field deployments of research radars) to 5 min [characterizing the operational scan period of Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) radars]. For every volume scan period tested, VORT provided a better analysis of *w* than IMP, but the best results were obtained in IMP + VORT. However, Fig. 7 also reveals an ominous trend: the tendency for a steeper degradation of performance with increased volume scan time in the VORT and IMP + VORT experiments than in the IMP experiment. Evidently, the vorticity equation constraint, though still adding value to the analysis, is beginning to exhibit sensitivity to errors in the frozen-turbulence hypothesis (recall that the *U* and *V* pattern-translation components used in the analysis tests were contaminated with 20% systematic error and that the pseudo-observations were generated with a 10-min *e*-folding decay time). As a follow-up experiment, we repeated these volume scan time experiments with systematic errors in the *U* and *V* pattern-translation components increased to 40% (*U* = 6 m s^{−1} and *V* = 14 m s^{−1} compared with correct values of 10 and 10 m s^{−1}, respectively). As seen in Fig. 8, these experiments reveal a significant deterioration of the performance of the vorticity equation–based experiments VORT and IMP + VORT. In this case, IMP provides better results than VORT or IMP + VORT when used with data from 3-, 4-, or 5-min volume scans. The vorticity constraint is still able to improve the analysis when data are gathered in a “rapid scan” mode, with IMP + VORT yielding the best results with data from 1- and 2-min volume scans, but the improvement over IMP is only marginal.

In a set of experiments designed to further explore the sensitivity of the analysis to length of the analysis time window, we fixed the volume scan period at 2 min (and reverted back to the 20% systematic error in *U* and *V* estimates used in the majority of our experiments) but varied the number of volume scans. Table 2 indicates that IMP, VORT, and IMP + VORT all degrade as multiple volume scans are used, but IMP + VORT yields the best results, even in the three-scan case where use of the vorticity equation by itself (VORT) proved disastrous. A follow-on experiment (also shown in Table 2) where three scans were used but the temporal-decay term in the specification of the pseudo-observations was turned off yielded much improved results. Contrasting this latter unrealistically optimistic experiment with the other, more realistic, three-scan experiments highlights the danger of degraded retrieval accuracy when long time windows are used with (inevitably) evolving wind fields. However, the results from the two-scan experiments (Figs. 7 and 8) suggest that the impact of flow evolution can be partially mitigated if data are available in a rapid-scan mode. Presumably, the improvement brought about by rapid scanning comes from a more accurate discrepancy calculation (shifting of analyzed winds) used in the evaluation of (9).

Table 3 summarizes results from experiments designed to systematically explore the relative impacts of the various sources of error. In these experiments, radial winds from one 2-min volume scan are used from each radar. The “no” data cutoff experiments are run with radial wind data available throughout the analysis domain. The “yes” data cutoff experiments are run with radial wind data withheld at heights beneath 1.5 km. In the “no” decay term experiments, the temporal-decay term in the Beltrami solution used to generate the pseudo-observations is turned off. In the “no” *υ _{r}* error experiments, random errors are not applied to the radial wind pseudo-observations. In the “no”

*U*and

*V*error experiments, the exact

*U*and

*V*pattern-translation components are used (20% errors are imposed in the “yes” experiments). The experiments in the first row (no, no, no, and no) are the most optimistic; the only errors are the inevitable “procedural” errors associated with the Cressman interpolation step, the spatial discretizations of the mass conservation and vorticity equation constraints, and the imposition of the smoothness constraint. The experiments in the second row (yes, no, no, and no) differ from those in the first row in that data are now withheld for

*z*< 1.5 km. In this case, the quality of the IMP, VORT, and IMP + VORT retrievals degrade, but the degradation is far more serious for IMP than for VORT or IMP + VORT. Indeed, the errors in IMP have apparently saturated, with only minor increases in IMP retrieval errors as further sources of error are brought in. The experiments of the third row (yes, yes, no, and no) show that, when the pseudo-observations are allowed to evolve, the retrievals in which the vorticity constraint is used (VORT and IMP + VORT) degrade by an additional 8%. Compared to the third row experiments, a further 6% degradation in VORT and IMP + VORT is evident in the fourth row experiments (yes, yes, yes, and no), in which random observational errors are accounted for. However, a more pronounced degradation of VORT and IMP + VORT is evident when errors in the pattern-translation components are accounted for (cf. the fifth row experiments to the fourth row experiments). Once the pattern-translation error has been accounted for, imposition of random observational error (sixth row experiments) has only a minor impact on VORT or IMP + VORT (although, curiously, VORT actually undergoes a very slight improvement).

A special concern for those interested in using results from a weak-constraint dual-Doppler analysis in further quantitative analysis is the extent to which the mass conservation equation is violated. To see how this constraint is violated in our experiments (recall that in our experiments the constraining mass conservation equation was the incompressibility condition), we calculate a normalized divergence defined on each analysis level *z* as the ratio of the RMS velocity divergence to the root of the mean of the sum of the squares of the three terms comprising the velocity divergence. Figure 9 depicts vertical profiles of this normalized divergence for IMP, VORT, and IMP + VORT for the same experiments considered in Figs. 3 –6. Not surprisingly, the normalized divergence is larger in the VORT and IMP + VORT experiments than in the IMP experiment, because minimization of a vorticity constraint would generally be at some expense to other constraints. However, even in these VORT and IMP + VORT experiments, the normalized divergence is very small: less than 0.005 at all levels. We also inspected horizontal cross sections (not shown) of a local normalized divergence, which is defined as the ratio of the velocity divergence to the root of the sum of the squares of the three terms comprising the velocity divergence. Although this local normalized divergence was less than 0.01 throughout much of the domain, there were isolated points where it was as large as 0.2–0.4. However, these isolated points were all found to be associated with very small values of each of the terms comprising the divergence, so the absolute (not normalized) divergence was very small. We conclude that even though mass conservation is imposed as a weak constraint, it is being very well satisfied throughout the analysis domain.

In a final set of experiments, we considered a Beltrami test case similar to that used in the previous experiments but with the vertical wavelength doubled [*m* halved to 2*π*/(24 km)]. The *w* field in this new test case attains a maximum value at the top of the analysis domain, instead of in the middle of it, and the low-level horizontal divergence is weaker than in the original case. As seen in Fig. 10, the IMP + VORT retrieval still yields superior results at every level. However, compared to the old test case (Fig. 4), the performance of VORT is now worse than IMP at every level. Part of this reversal is due to the improved performance of IMP with the new wind field. This improvement is not surprising, because the new wind field is characterized by a weaker low-level horizontal divergence and so the omission of the winds in the data void region impacts IMP less than it did with the original wind field. However, the other contributing factor to the reversal of the performance is the degradation of the results in the VORT experiment. We are still trying to understand the reason for this degradation. One explanation may be related to the fact that doubling the vertical wavelength of the input winds weakens both the wind shear and the horizontal divergence (which appear in the tilting and stretching terms in the vorticity equation) by factors of 2. This reduction may reduce the effectiveness of the vorticity equation as a constraint in a manner analogous to the reduced effectiveness of scalar conservation equations in single-Doppler velocity retrieval in regions where the gradient of the scalar becomes weak (e.g., Qiu and Xu 1992; Shapiro et al. 1995; Lazarus et al. 1999). Fortunately, despite the poor performance of the VORT retrieval, the VORT + IMP experiment shows that the vorticity constraint still adds value when it is combined with the impermeability condition.

## 7. Summary and conclusions

We have explored the utility of the anelastic vertical vorticity equation as a weak constraint in a variational dual-Doppler analysis procedure that also incorporates traditional constraints (data, mass conservation, and smoothness) and the frozen-turbulence hypothesis. Our focus was on the value added by the vorticity equation constraint in cases where radars fail to sample low levels of the atmosphere. The procedure was tested with pseudo-observations of a Beltrami flow solution of the Navier–Stokes equations describing a translating and temporally decaying array of counterrotating updrafts and downdrafts. Data were contaminated with random error, whereas systematic errors were imposed on the estimated *U* and *V* frozen-turbulence pattern-translation components. Data from heights <1.5 km AGL were withheld from the analysis to simulate the low-level data coverage problem. Three types of data-denial experiments were performed: the impermeability condition imposed without a vorticity equation constraint, the vorticity equation constraint imposed without the impermeability condition, and both the impermeability condition and the vorticity equation constraint imposed.

In the default experiment configuration (parameters given in section 5), the test without the vorticity equation showed that the traditional constraints by themselves were unable to compensate for missing data that contained information about the highly convergent/divergent low-level flow. In contrast, the vorticity constraint provided useful dynamical information about the vertical velocity field in the region of data coverage that greatly improved the analysis. The best results were obtained when both the impermeability condition and vorticity constraint were imposed.

In experiments with volume scan periods ranging from 1 to 5 min, the vorticity equation constraint was again found to add value, but the effect was diminished at the longer scan periods. When these experiments were repeated with systematic errors in the estimated pattern-translation components doubled (40% error), the vorticity equation constraint degraded the accuracy of the retrieval when the longer-period volume scans were used but added value when the shorter-period scans were used, provided the impermeability condition was also applied. These and related experiments focusing on the use of multiple volume scans suggest that the vorticity equation can provide useful dynamical information but only if the pattern-translation components are estimated sufficiently accurately and the analysis time window is kept short. Errors stemming from inaccurate estimates of the pattern-translation components (or breakdown of the frozen-turbulence hypothesis itself) can be mitigated by the use of rapid-scan data. However, it should be kept in mind that our tests were performed in an idealized analytical framework (see especially the last paragraph of section 5) and that extensive tests with real data should be undertaken before general conclusions can be drawn. We have recently begun tests of the algorithm with a real supercell dataset.

Based on results from the experiments described herein and from the “vorticity method” studies cited in section 1, we anticipate that the greatest challenge to a wider application of a vertical vorticity equation constraint in dual-Doppler analysis systems is to ensure a sufficiently accurate discretization of the local derivative term. Improvements in the treatment of that term might be made on several fronts. First, because storm environments are typically sheared and different parts of storms may move at different speeds, it might be necessary to work with spatially variable *U* and *V* pattern-translation components rather than the constant values used in traditional space-to-time conversions. Toward that end, a recently developed advection-correction algorithm that estimates spatially variable pattern-translation components from reflectivity data (manuscript in preparation) might prove useful. It might also be necessary to account for intrinsic evolution effects (unsteadiness in a moving reference frame). Approaches described by Protat and Zawadzki (2000), Protat et al. (2001), and Liu et al. (2004) might be beneficial for that purpose. In addition, as new generations of Doppler radar platforms come online, rapid-scan datasets of a variety of mesoscale phenomena are becoming increasingly available for dual-Doppler wind analysis. Among the radar systems that can provide rapid-scan data are phased array weather radars (Zrnic et al. 2007); dense networks of low-cost, low-power radars with flexible scanning strategies, such as those developed by the Engineering Research Center for the Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere (CASA; Brotzge et al. 2006); and mobile Doppler radars, such as the Shared Mobile Atmospheric Research and Teaching Radar (SMART-R; Biggerstaff et al. 2005), the Doppler-on-Wheels (DOW; Wurman et al. 1997), and the University of Massachusetts mobile Doppler radar (Bluestein and Pazmany 2000).

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant ATM-0532107 and by the Engineering Research Centers Program of the NSF under Cooperative Agreement EEC-0313747. J. G. also acknowledges NSF Grant ATM-0738370. This manuscript has benefited from the detailed and insightful comments of the anonymous reviewers. The authors also thank Luther White [University of Oklahoma (OU)], Matthew Kumjian (OU), Tian-You Yu (OU), Alexander Ryzhkov (Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies), and Shaun Hardy (Geophysical Laboratory Library, Carnegie Institution of Washington).

## REFERENCES

Anagnostou, E. N., and Krajewski W. , 1999: Real-time radar rainfall estimation. Part I: Algorithm formulation.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***16****,**189–197.Austin, G. L., and Bellon A. , 1974: The use of digital weather radar records for short-term precipitation forecasting.

,*Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.***100****,**658–664.Bannon, P. R., 1996: On the anelastic approximation for a compressible atmosphere.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***53****,**3618–3628.Biggerstaff, M. I., and Coauthors, 2005: The shared mobile atmospheric research and teaching radar: A collaboration to enhance research and teaching.

,*Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.***86****,**1263–1274.Bluestein, H. B., and Pazmany A. L. , 2000: Observations of tornadoes and other convective phenomena with a mobile, 3-mm wavelength, Doppler radar: The spring 1999 field experiment.

,*Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.***81****,**2939–2951.Brotzge, J. A., Droegemeier K. , and McLaughlin D. J. , 2006: Collaborative adaptive sensing of the atmosphere: New radar system for improving analysis and forecasting of surface weather conditions.

,*J. Transport. Res. Board***1948****,**145–151.Caillault, K., and Lemaître Y. , 1999: Retrieval of three-dimensional wind fields corrected for the time-induced advection problem.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***16****,**708–722.Caya, A., Laroche S. , Zawadzki I. , and Montmerle T. , 2002: Using single-Doppler data to obtain a mesoscale environmental field.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***19****,**21–36.Chong, M., Testud J. , and Roux F. , 1983: Three-dimensional wind field analysis from dual-Doppler radar data. Part II: Minimizing the error due to temporal variation.

,*J. Climate Appl. Meteor.***22****,**1216–1226.Collins, G. O., and Kuhn P. M. , 1954: A generalized study of precipitation forecasting. Part 3: Computation of precipitation resulting from vertical velocities deduced from vorticity changes.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***82****,**173–182.Daley, R., 1991:

*Atmospheric Data Analysis*. Cambridge University Press, 457 pp.Dedebant, G., and Wehrlé Ph , 1935: L’équation du tourbillon synoptique et son application à la théorie du système nuageux. Union Géodésique et Géophysique Internationale Cinquième Assemblée Générale. Lisbonne 1933.

,*P.-V. Séances Assoc. Météorologie***2****,**117–144.Doviak, R. J., and Zrnic D. S. , 1984:

*Doppler Radar and Weather Observation*. Academic Press, 458 pp.Doviak, R. J., Ray P. S. , Strauch R. G. , and Miller L. J. , 1976: Error estimation in wind fields derived from dual-Doppler radar measurement.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***15****,**868–878.Dowell, D. C., Alexander C. R. , Wurman J. M. , and Wicker L. J. , 2005: Centrifuging of hydrometeors and debris in tornadoes: Radar reflectivity patterns and wind measurement errors.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***133****,**1501–1524.Dutton, J. A., and Fichtl G. H. , 1969: Approximate equations of motion for gases and liquids.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***26****,**241–254.Eliassen, A., and Hubert W. E. , 1953: Computations of vertical motion and vorticity budget in a blocking situation.

,*Tellus***5****,**196–206.Fuelberg, H. E., and Funk T. W. , 1987: Diagnosis of vertical motion from VAS retrievals.

,*J. Climate Appl. Meteor.***26****,**1655–1670.Gal-Chen, T., 1982: Errors in fixed and moving frame of references: Applications for conventional and Doppler radar analysis.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***39****,**2279–2300.Gao, J., Xue M. , Shapiro A. , and Droegemeier K. K. , 1999: A variational method for the analysis of three-dimensional wind fields from two Doppler radars.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***127****,**2128–2142.Haltiner, G. J., and Williams R. T. , 1980:

*Numerical Prediction and Dynamic Meteorology*. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, 477 pp.Heymsfield, G. M., 1978: Kinematic and dynamic aspects of the Harrah tornadic storm analysed from dual-Doppler radar data.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***106****,**233–254.Hoffman, R. N., 1984: SASS wind ambiguity removal by direct minimization. Part II: Use of smoothness and dynamical constraints.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***112****,**1829–1852.Irmay, S., and Zuzovsky M. , 1970: Exact solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations in two-way flows.

,*Israel J. Technol.***8****,**307–315.Kropfli, R. A., and Miller L. J. , 1976: Kinematic structure and flux quantities in a convective storm from dual-Doppler radar observations.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***33****,**520–529.Lazarus, S., Shapiro A. , and Droegemeier K. , 1999: Analysis of the Gal-Chen–Zhang single-Doppler velocity retrieval.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***16****,**5–18.Lazarus, S., Shapiro A. , and Droegemeier K. , 2001: Application of the Zhang-Gal-Chen single-Doppler velocity retrieval to a deep convective storm.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***58****,**998–1016.Lee, J. L., and Browning G. L. , 1994: Analysis of errors in the horizontal divergence derived from high temporal resolution of the wind.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***122****,**851–863.Lee, J. L., Browning G. L. , and Xie Y. F. , 1995: Estimating divergence and vorticity from the wind profiler network hourly wind measurements.

,*Tellus***47A****,**892–910.Lee, J. L., Kuo Y-H. , and MacDonald A. E. , 2003: The vorticity method: Extension to mesoscale vertical velocity and validation for tropical storms.

,*Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.***129****,**1029–1050.Lee, J. L., Lee W. C. , and MacDonald A. E. , 2006: Estimating vertical velocity and radial flow from Doppler radar observations of tropical cyclones.

,*Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.***132****,**125–145.Liou, Y-C., and Luo I-S. , 2001: An investigation of the moving-frame single-Doppler wind retrieval technique using Taiwan area mesoscale experiment low-level data.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***40****,**1900–1917.Lipps, F. B., and Hemler R. S. , 1982: A scale analysis of deep moist convection and some related numerical calculations.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***39****,**2192–2210.Liu, S., Qiu C. , Xu Q. , and Zhang P. , 2004: An improved time interpolation for three- dimensional Doppler wind analysis.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***43****,**1379–1391.Liu, S., Qiu C. , Xu Q. , Zhang P. , Gao J. , and Shao A. , 2005: An improved method for Doppler wind and thermodynamic retrievals.

,*Adv. Atmos. Sci.***22****,**90–102.Matejka, T., 2002: Estimating the most steady frame of reference from Doppler radar data.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***19****,**1035–1048.Mewes, J. J., and Shapiro A. , 2002: Use of the vorticity equation in dual-Doppler analysis of the vertical velocity field.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***19****,**543–567.Miller, A., and Panofsky H. A. , 1958: Large-scale vertical motion and weather in January, 1953.

,*Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.***39****,**8–13.Nash, W. P., and Chamberlain L. W. , 1954: Some aspects of the heavy rains in the Chicago area, October 9-11, 1954.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***82****,**305–316.Press, W. H., Teukolsky S. A. , Vetterling W. T. , and Flannery B. P. , 1992:

*Numerical Recipes in FORTRAN: The Art of Scientific Computing*. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 963 pp.Protat, A., and Zawadzki I. , 2000: Optimization of dynamic retrievals from a multiple-Doppler radar network.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***17****,**753–760.Protat, A., Zawadzki I. , and Caya A. , 2001: Kinematic and thermodynamic study of a shallow hailstorm sampled by the McGill bistatic multiple-Doppler radar network.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***58****,**1222–1248.Qiu, C-J., and Xu Q. , 1992: A simple adjoint method of wind analysis for single-Doppler data.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***9****,**588–598.Qiu, C-J., and Xu Q. , 1996: Least squares retrieval of microburst winds from single-Doppler radar data.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***124****,**1132–1144.Ray, P. S., 1976: Vorticity and divergence fields within tornadic storms from dual-Doppler observations.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***15****,**879–890.Ray, P. S., Doviak R. J. , Walker G. B. , Sirmans D. , Carter J. , and Bumgarner B. , 1975: Dual-Doppler observation of a tornadic storm.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***14****,**1521–1530.Riehl, H., Norquest K. S. , and Sugg A. L. , 1952: A quantitative method for the prediction of rainfall patterns.

,*J. Meteor.***9****,**291–298.Sasaki, Y., 1970: Some basic formalisms in numerical variational analysis.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***98****,**875–883.Sasaki, Y., 1971: A theoretical interpretation of anisotropically weighted smoothing on the basis of numerical variational analysis.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***99****,**698–707.Sawyer, J. S., 1949: Large scale vertical motion in the atmosphere.

,*Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.***75****,**185–188.Scialom, G., and Lemaître Y. , 1990: A new analysis for the retrieval of three-dimensional mesoscale wind fields from multiple Doppler radar.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***7****,**640–665.Shapiro, A., 1993: The use of an exact solution of the Navier-Stokes equations in a validation test of a three-dimensional nonhydrostatic numerical model.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***121****,**2420–2425.Shapiro, A., 2005: Drag-induced transfer of horizontal momentum between air and raindrops.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***62****,**2205–2219.Shapiro, A., Ellis S. , and Shaw J. , 1995: Single-Doppler velocity retrievals with Phoenix II data: Clear air and microburst wind retrievals in the planetary boundary layer.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***52****,**1265–1287.Taylor, G. I., 1938: The spectrum of turbulence.

,*Proc. Roy. Soc. London***164A****,**476–490.Thacker, W. C., 1988: Fitting models to inadequate data by enforcing spatial and temporal smoothness.

,*J. Geophys. Res.***93****,**10655–10665.Truesdell, C., 1954:

*The Kinematics of Vorticity*. Indiana University Press, 232 pp.Wahba, G., and Wendelberger J. , 1980: Some new mathematical methods for variational objective analysis using splines and cross validation.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***108****,**1122–1143.Wurman, J., Straka J. , Rasmussen E. , Randall M. , and Zahrai A. , 1997: Design and deployment of a portable, pencil-beam, pulsed, 3-cm Doppler radar.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***14****,**1502–1512.Xu, Q., 2005: Representations of inverse covariances by differential operators.

,*Adv. Atmos. Sci.***22****,**181–198.Xu, Q., Qiu C-J. , Gu H-D. , and Yu J-X. , 1995: Simple adjoint retrievals of microburst winds from single-Doppler radar data.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***123****,**1822–1833.Xu, Q., Gu H. , and Qiu C. , 2001: Simple adjoint retrievals of wet-microburst winds and gust-front winds from single-Doppler radar data.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***40****,**1485–1499.Yanai, M., and Nitta T. , 1967: Computation of vertical motion and vorticity budget in a Caribbean easterly wave.

,*J. Meteor. Soc. Japan***45****,**444–466.Zawadzki, I. I., 1973: Statistical properties of precipitation patterns.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***12****,**459–472.Zrnic, D. S., and Coauthors, 2007: Agile-beam phased array radar for weather observations.

,*Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.***88****,**1753–1766.

RMSE in *w* expressed as a percentage of the RMS *w* from the exact solution at the 1.5- and 3.0-km levels for the weighting-coefficient sensitivity experiments. In each of these experiments, one weight is varied, whereas the others are fixed at the default values *C _{O}* = 1,

*C*= 0.1,

_{M}*C*= 7.0 × 10

_{V}^{−4}, and

*C*= 5.6 × 10

_{S}^{−5}. Radial winds from one 2-min volume scan are used from each radar. These data are contaminated with random error, and

*U*and

*V*pattern-translation components are contaminated with 20% systematic error. See section 5 for complete parameter settings and other details.

RMSE in *w* expressed as a percentage of the RMS *w* from the exact solution at the 1.5- and 3.0-km levels for the multiple sequential volume scans experiments. Each scan takes 2 min to complete. In the last experiments (no decay), the exponential temporal-decay term in the specification of the pseudo-observations was turned off.

RMSE in *w* expressed as a percentage of the RMS *w* from the exact solution for experiments with various sources of error. Results are shown for the *z* = 1.5 km level. See text for description of the experiments.