## 1. Introduction

Information about the drop size distribution (DSD) is essential for understanding precipitation physics, estimating rainfall, and improving microphysics parameterizations in numerical weather prediction (NWP) models (Steiner et al. 2004). The characteristics of rain DSDs are often associated with the types of storms (e.g., convective versus stratiform rain) and their stages of development (e.g., the developing versus decaying stage; Brandes et al. 2006). Strong convective rain usually contains both large and small drops and has a broad DSD while the decaying stage of convection is often dominated by small drops. Stratiform rain usually contains relatively larger drops but has a low number concentration for a given rain rate (Zhang et al. 2006).

*N*

_{0}(m

^{−3}mm

^{−1}) is the intercept parameter and Λ (mm

^{−1}) is a slope parameter. A single-moment bulk microphysics model predicts one of the moments of the DSD, which determines one of the two parameters. Either the intercept parameter

*N*

_{0}or the slope Λ is fixed so that the other parameter Λ (or

*N*

_{0}) is uniquely related to the predicted water content

*W*(g m

^{−3}), which in turn is linearly related to the third moment of the DSD. The Marshall–Palmer (MP; Marshall and Palmer 1948) exponential DSD model with the

*N*

_{0}value fixed at 8000 m

^{−3}mm

^{−1}= 8 × 10

^{6}m

^{−4}is widely used for representing warm rain (Kessler 1969) and ice (e.g., Lin et al. 1983; Hong et al. 2004) microphysics. In a microphysics scheme used by the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) model, the slope parameter Λ is fixed and the

*N*

_{0}is determined from the

*W*(Walko et al. 1995). The single-moment schemes are computationally efficient and widely used in research and operational NWP models.

In NWP model simulations, forecast results are sensitive to the DSD parameters chosen (e.g., Gilmore et al. 2004; van den Heever and Cotton 2004; Tong and Xue 2008). While one of the exponential distribution parameters needs to be fixed in single-moment schemes, two-moment schemes allow more flexibility in representing DSDs by determining both parameters from two prognostic state variables (often the mixing ratio and total number concentration). The gamma distribution has also been used in two- and three-moment parameterization schemes (Meyers et al. 1997; Milbrandt and Yau 2005a, b; Seifert 2005), allowing for varying shape parameters of DSDs. While the exponential distribution may be sufficient for snowflakes, the gamma distribution has the advantage of better characterizing hail size distributions where there are few small particles.

Recent disdrometer observations have indicated that the *N*_{0} and number concentration (*N _{t}*) are not constant, but vary depending on precipitation type, rain intensity, and stage of development. Waldvogel (1974) found large changes in

*N*

_{0}for DSDs at different heights in profiling radar data. Sauvageot and Lacaux (1995) showed variations of both

*N*

_{0}and Λ from impact disdrometer measurements. Recent observations by 2D video disdrometers (2DVD) suggest that rain DSDs are better represented by a constrained gamma distribution (Zhang et al. 2001) that also contains two free parameters. In Zhang et al. (2006), the constrained gamma model was further simplified to a single-parameter model for bulk microphysical parameterization, which produced more accurate precipitation system forecasts than the MP model. Since the exponential distribution model is widely used, a diagnostic relation of

*N*

_{0}as a function of

*W*would improve rain estimation and microphysical parameterizations that are based on such an improved model. Thompson et al. (2004) proposed a diagnostic

*N*

_{0}relation using a hyperbolic tangent function to represent drizzle-type rain for winter weather prediction, which has not been verified by observations. The relation yields too many small drops and hence too much evaporation, which may not be applicable to summertime convection or stratiform rain types.

In this study, we derive a diagnostic *N*_{0} relation from rain DSD data that were collected in Oklahoma using disdrometers. To minimize the error effects introduced in the fitting procedure, we formulate the problem with a relation between two DSD moments. A diagnostic relation is found from the relation between two middle moments. Section 2 describes methods of deriving the diagnostic relation and section 3 presents results of diagnosing *N*_{0} from water content using 2DVD measurements. In section 4, we discuss applications of the diagnostic relation in the parameterization of rain physics and microphysical processes. A final summary and discussion are given in section 5.

## 2. Diagnosing methods

The diagnostic relation for the intercept parameter *N*_{0} as a function of water content can be derived using two different approaches: (i) the direct fitting approach (DFA) and (ii) the moment relation method (MRM), described as follows:

The DFA is to first find the DSD parameters (*N*_{0}, Λ) by fitting DSD (e.g., disdrometer) data to the exponential function (1) for each DSD, and then to plot the estimated *N*_{0} versus *W* for the whole dataset to obtain a mean relation.

*n*th moment of the exponential DSD (1) is

*N*

_{0}and Λ, can be determined from any two moments (

*M*

_{l},

*M*) as

_{m}*N*

_{0}is obtained along with the water content

*W*for DSD datasets, a

*N*

_{0}–

*W*relation can be found through another fitting procedure (e.g., power-law fitting). It is noted that the values of the estimated

*N*

_{0}depend on which two moments are used and on the accuracy of the two moment estimates. Since the estimates of both the moments (

*M*

_{l},

*M*

_{m}) have errors, the DSD parameters (

*N*

_{0}, Λ) obtained from them will also have errors. The natural variation in DSDs and model error also causes a large scatter in the

*N*

_{0}–

*W*plot (see Fig. 2 in next section). The estimation error and natural variation are very difficult to separate unless two or more instruments are used (Cao et al. 2008). Hence, the

*N*

_{0}–

*W*relation derived from the above procedure tends to have larger errors than those produced by the MRM procedure discussed below.

*N*

_{0}–

*W*relation. In MRM, we first seek to establish a relation between two DSD moments. With this relation, the exponential distribution is reduced to having a single free parameter so that

*N*

_{0}can be determined from

*W*. Suppose that two DSD moments

*M*, and

_{l}*M*are related by a power-law relation:

_{m}*a*and

*b*are coefficients that can be estimated from disdrometer observations. From (2) for the third moment, we have water content

*W*=

*π*/6

*ρM*

_{3}=

*πρN*

_{0}Λ

^{−4}(

*ρ*is water density), yielding the slope parameter Λ = (

*N*

_{0}

*πρ*/

*W*)

^{1/4}. Substituting (2) into (5) for

*M*and

_{l}*M*, and making use of the relation for Λ, we obtain

_{m}Hence, (6)–(9) constitute a general formulation for deriving a *N*_{0}–*W* relation using a statistical relation between two DSD moments. When the coefficients *a* and *b* in the relation (5) are determined from a set of DSD data, we have a diagnostic relation between the water content *W* and the intercept parameter *N*_{0}. This is the procedure that will be used in the next section with a disdrometer dataset.

## 3. Derivation of the *N*_{0}–*W* relation from disdrometer observations

We test our method for deriving the *N*_{0}–*W* relation using disdrometer data collected in Oklahoma during the summer seasons of 2005, 2006, and 2007 (Cao et al. 2008). Three 2DVDs, operated respectively by the University of Oklahoma (OU), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), were deployed at the NSSL site in Norman, Oklahoma, and at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) site of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program. The ARM site is located approximately 28 km south of the NSSL site. The three 2DVDs have similar characteristics, but with slightly different resolutions. The OU and NCAR disdrometers have the same resolution of 0.132 mm while the NSSL disdrometer has a 0.195-mm resolution. The resolutions limit the performance and accuracy in measuring very small drops (*D* < 0.4 mm). A total of 14 200 min of disdrometer data with total drop counts greater than 50 were collected. The recorded raindrops within each minute were processed to produce 1-min DSD samples, resulting in 14 200 DSDs. Among them, only 870 DSDs are side-by-side measurements, yielding 435 pairs of DSDs.

With the side-by-side data, measurement errors of DSDs were quantified. The sampling errors are further reduced by sorting and averaging based on two parameters (SATP), a method that combines DSDs with similar rainfall rates *R* and median volume diameters (*D*_{0}; Cao et al. 2008). There are 2160 quality-controlled DSDs after SATP processing for the same dataset (14 200 DSDs). The DSD moments are estimated by the sum of weighted DSDs as defined in (2). As shown in Table 1 of Cao et al. (2008), the relative errors of the moments: *M*_{0}, *M*_{2}, *M*_{3}, *M*_{4}, and *M*_{6} are 10.3%, 9.1%, 9.0%, 10.3%, and 17.5%, respectively. In addition, the low moment measurements are highly affected by wind, splashing, and instrumentation limits, resulting in even more error that is not shown in that table (Kruger and Krajewski 2002). Since the middle moments (*M*_{2}, *M*_{3}, *M*_{4}) are measured more accurately, their use in DSD fitting should be more reliable. It is desirable to consider both error effects and physical significance of the moments being used for the application. A moment pair (*M*_{2}, *M*_{4}) is considered a good combination that balances both well (Smith and Kliche 2005). In addition, the moment pair (*M*_{2}, *M*_{4}) has an advantage over (*M*_{2}, *M*_{3}) or (*M*_{3}, *M*_{4}) because of the larger difference in the information the two moments provide.

As an example, three measured rain DSDs are shown in Fig. 1 as discrete points. Based on rain rate and precipitation duration, they correspond to strong convection (A: 2231 UTC), weak convection (B: 2344 UTC), and stratiform rain (C: 2301 UTC), respectively (taken from the rain events shown in Figs. 5c, 6c). Using the moment pair of (*M*_{2}, *M*_{4}), the DSDs are fitted to the exponential distribution, shown as dashed lines. The exponential DSD model fits the data reasonably well, especially for the strong convection and stratiform rain cases. It is also noted that the exponential model does not capture well the curved shape of stratiform and weak convection DSDs (see, e.g., Fig. 3 of Brandes et al. 2006). In those instances, it tends to overestimate the number concentration. It is clear that the intercept parameter values are quite different for strong convection, weak convection, and stratiform DSDs; however, there seems to be a systematic/statistical trend: the heavier the rain intensity, the larger the *N*_{0} value.

*N*

_{0}and Λ are first estimated from the moment pairs of (

*M*

_{0},

*M*

_{3}), (

*M*

_{2},

*M*

_{4}), and (

*M*

_{3},

*M*

_{6}) using (3) and (4) for the whole dataset. The exponentially fitted

*N*

_{0}values are plotted versus the rainwater content in Fig. 2. The rainwater content is calculated from the estimated third moment by

*W*=

*π*/6 × 10

^{−3}

*M*

_{3}from measured DSDs. As expected, there is a large scatter in the

*N*

_{0}–

*W*plot because of measurement and model errors as well as natural variations. It is important to note that the

*N*

_{0}variability is part of rain microphysical properties, represented by the exponential DSD model. Also, different moment pairs produce different results for

*N*

_{0}due to differences in estimation error and error propagation in the fitting procedure (Zhang et al. 2003). It is clear that there is a positive correlation between

*N*

_{0}and

*W*. However, due to the large scatter of data points in Fig. 2, it is difficult to fit them to stable

*N*

_{0}–

*W*relations. For example, minimizing error in the

*x*axis (W) gives a different result from that of minimizing error in the

*y*axis

*N*

_{0}. We chose to minimize the errors on both axes, yielding the results shown in Fig. 2 as straight lines. The coefficients (

*α*,

*β*) for these power-law relations are listed in Table 1. As discussed earlier, the most reliable result is that from the pair (

*M*

_{2},

*M*

_{4}), which is

*N*

_{0}–

*W*relation is derived from a moment relation as outlined in section 2. Figure 3 shows the scatterplots of moments for the pair of (

*M*

_{0},

*M*

_{3}), (

*M*

_{2},

*M*

_{4}), and (

*M*

_{3},

*M*

_{6}) directly calculated from the DSD data, and the corresponding power-law relations are obtained as

*M*

_{2},

*M*

_{4}), we have

*a*= 1.473 and

*b*= 0.838 in Eq. (5). The correlation between the moments is high, with a correlation coefficient of 0.85 in the linear domain and 0.90 in the logarithmic domain for this pair. Substituting for

*a*and

*b*in (6)–(9), we obtain

*α*= 7106 and

*β*= 0.648, therefore

The results with the other moment pairs of (*M*_{0}, *M*_{3}) and (*M*_{3}, *M*_{6}) are shown in Table 1 with their coefficients. This *N*_{0}–*W* relation (12) derived from the moment pair (*M*_{2}, *M*_{4}) is shown in Fig. 4 along with those derived from moment pairs (*M*_{0}, *M*_{3}) and (*M*_{3}, *M*_{6}) as thick lines. The lower (higher) moment pair yields a relation with a larger (smaller) slope, which is opposite to the DFA results. Overall, the DFA results have even larger slopes, attributed to the effects of a limited number of drops for light rain, since each data point is equally weighted and there are more points for light rain. Nevertheless, they all have an increasing trend with *W*. The diagnostic relation by Thompson et al. (2004) is also shown for comparison, which has a trend opposite to those indicated by (10) and (12), developed here based on disdrometer data. Because the total number concentration is given by *N*_{t} = *N*_{0}/Λ and the median volume diameter is given by *D*_{0} = 3.67/Λ, the Thompson scheme yields a large (small) total number concentration for light (heavy) rain, which is not true in observations of summer rain events (Zhang et al. 2001). Hence, Thompson’s relation proposed for winter weather drizzle may not be suitable for simulating convective and stratiform rain events.

*M*

_{2},

*M*

_{4}) has smaller errors and its derived relations should be used. The two

*N*

_{0}–

*W*relations in (10) and (12), derived using the DFA and MRM methods, and the fixed

*N*

_{0}are compared through their error statistics. The absolute value of the mass-weighted relative error of moment estimates using the constrained exponential DSD models is calculated as

*n*th moment is

*M*

^{(m)}

_{n}(

*l*), which is directly calculated from the

*l*th DSD, and

*M*

^{(e)}

_{n}(

*l*) is the estimated moment from water content using the diagnostic

*N*

_{0}DSD model. The results are listed in Table 2. It is shown that the DFA relation (10) yield larger errors, with negative biases for the higher moments (

*M*

_{4},

*M*

_{5}, and

*M*

_{6}) and positive biases for the lower moments (

*M*

_{0},

*M*

_{1}, and

*M*

_{2}). This is because the DFA treats each data point with equal weight in the log–log plot (Fig. 2). The large number of light-rain DSDs may dominate the fitted relation, leading to an unrealistically large power coefficient and yielding overestimation (underestimation) of

*N*

_{0}for heavy (light) rain, and hence the negative and positive biases. However, the moment errors with relation (12) are much smaller, especially for the lower moments, because the MRM-derived relation accounts for proper weighting. It is interesting to note that the fixed

*N*

_{0}= 8000 m

^{−3}mm

^{−1}used by the MP model performs better than the DFA-derived relation. On the other hand, other fixed

*N*

_{0}values may not yield the same performance. This shows the importance of the procedure used in deriving a diagnostic relation. It is obvious that the MRM relation (12) has the best performance in characterizing rain microphysics. Therefore relation (12) is recommended.

For a better understanding of the *N*_{0}–*W* relation (12), Fig. 5 shows an example of *N*_{0} values along with other physical parameters (*N _{t}*,

*W*, and

*D*

_{0}) as a function of time for a convective rain event starting on 21 July 2006. This event was characterized by a strong convective storm followed by weak convection passing over the OU disdrometer deployed at the ARM site in Washington, Oklahoma. The water content is very low during the weak convection periods, but the median volume diameter

*D*

_{0}is comparable to that during the strong convection. The comparison between exponentially fitted

*N*

_{0}values from DSD moments

*M*

_{2}and

*M*

_{4}and those diagnosed from

*W*using (12) is plotted in Fig. 5a. Had the Thompson et al. (2004) relation been plotted, it would have been out of the range of the graph except for the strong convection period. As shown in Fig. 5b, moment fitting of the exponential DSD model yields a good estimate of total number concentration

*N*as compared with direct estimates from DSD data (discrete “+”). Here, the fitted

_{t}*N*

_{0}can be considered as “truth” because

*N*

_{0}is a model parameter that is obtained through the fitting procedure of (2)–(4). It is clear that the diagnosed

*N*

_{0}captures the main trend of the observed rainstorm very well in a dynamic range of more than two orders of magnitude, that is, from an order of 10

^{4}for strong convection to 10 for light-rain precipitation. In comparison, the fixed-

*N*

_{0}model overestimates

*N*

_{0}except for heavy convective rain. Figure 5c shows the rainwater content directly estimated from the DSD data. Also indicated in the figure are times when the two convection DSDs shown in Fig. 1 are taken. Figure 5d compares median volume diameter

*D*

_{0}calculated from the DSD data, estimated using the diagnostic-

*N*

_{0}DSD model and that with the fixed-

*N*

_{0}DSD model. The diagnostic-

*N*

_{0}model yields

*D*

_{0}results arguably better than those of fixed-

*N*

_{0}model.

Figure 6 shows the same parameters as that in Fig. 5, but for a primarily stratiform rain event that began with weak convection (at 2115 UTC) on 6 November 2006. Again, the diagnostic *N*_{0}–*W* relation produces a much better agreement with the measurements than does the fixed-*N*_{0} model, especially for *D*_{0} during the stratiform rain period (after 2230 UTC). It is also noted that the stratiform rain has a much lower number concentration (*N _{t}* < 500) than the strong convection in Fig. 5. Even the exponential fit and the diagnostic

*N*

_{0}model overestimate

*N*by 3–4 times. This is because stratiform rain DSDs tend to have a convex shape and do not contain as many small drops as the exponential model. Also, since the dataset is dominated by convective rain events, the derived relation (12) may not represent stratiform rain as well as convective rain. Further reduction of

_{t}*N*

_{0}may be needed for better representing stratiform rain characteristics.

## 4. Application to warm rain microphysical parameterization

*R*(kg kg

_{e}^{−1}s

^{−1}), accretion rate

*R*(kg kg

_{c}^{−1}s

^{−1}), mass-weighted terminal velocity

*V*

_{tm}(m s

^{−1}), and reflectivity factor

*Z*(mm

^{6}m

^{−3}) are given by

*E*and

_{e}*E*are the evaporation and accretion efficiency factors, respectively (normally taken as 1);

_{c}*W*is rainwater content in grams per meter cubed as before (

*W*= 1000

*ρq*

_{r}); and

*q*,

_{υ}*q*, and

_{c}*q*are, respectively, the water vapor, cloud water, and rainwater mixing ratios (kg kg

_{r}^{−1}).

Substituting the diagnostic relation (12) into (14) and assuming unit saturation deficit and unit cloud water mixing ratio as well as unit efficiency factors, we obtain a parameterization scheme based on the diagnostic-*N*_{0} DSD model. The terms corresponding to those in Eq. (14) are listed in Table 3 along with those of the standard fixed-*N*_{0} MP model. The coefficients of these terms are similar for the two schemes, but the powers are substantially different. The larger power in evaporation rate means more (less) evaporation for heavy (light) rain compared to the fixed-*N*_{0} model. The smaller power in the reflectivity formula for the diagnostic-*N*_{0} model gives smaller (larger) reflectivity than the fixed *N*_{0} for heavy (light) rain. This may lead to a better agreement between numerical model forecasts and radar observations. The fixed-*N*_{0} DSD model tends to overpredict large reflectivity values and underpredict low reflectivity values (Brandes et al. 2006). In this sense, the diagnostic-*N*_{0} model has similar properties as the simplified constrained Gamma model investigated in Zhang et al. (2006).

Figure 7 compares the two parameterization schemes based on the diagnostic-*N*_{0} and fixed-*N*_{0} DSD models, respectively, by showing the microphysical processes/parameters as a function of *W*. The direct calculations from the DSD dataset are also shown for comparison. The diagnostic-*N*_{0} results agree well with those from the measurements except for reflectivity. The mass-weighted error of the reflectivity estimates with the diagnostic *N*_{0}, however, is smaller than that of the fixed *N*_{0}, as indicated in Table 2. As stated in the previous paragraph, the diagnostic-*N*_{0} model yields smaller (larger) evaporation and accretion rates for light (heavy) rain than the fixed-*N*_{0} model. However, the diagnostic-*N*_{0} scheme gives large (small) reflectivity and mass-weighted velocity values for light (heavy) rain cases. It is noted that the low end of the data points in Fig. 7b is associated with light rain and has large sampling errors. The performance of the DSD models should also be evaluated by calculating the relative errors for all the moments, as given in Table 2 and discussed earlier.

Figures 8 and 9 compare the terms for the microphysical processes estimated from *W* with the diagnostic-*N*_{0} scheme with those from the fixed-*N*_{0} scheme for the two rain events shown in Figs. 5, 6. Direct calculations from the observed DSD data and those with the exponential scheme with *N*_{0} as one of the two free parameters are also shown for reference. The results may appear to be close to each other in the semilogarithm plots, but actually, the fixed-*N*_{0} scheme underestimates the evaporation rate for strong convection (2220–2240 UTC) as the dashed line is below the red line and has smaller values than that of the direct calculations in Fig. 8. However, the scheme overestimates the evaporation rate for stratiform rain by about a factor of 5, shown in Fig. 9. This might be the reason that the parameterization coefficients in the Kessler scheme are sometimes reduced by a half or more to obtain a better match of modeling results with observations (e.g., Miller and Pearce 1974; Sun and Crook 1997). The diagnostic-*N*_{0} scheme also performs slightly better than the fixed-*N*_{0} scheme in estimating accretion rate and mass-weighted terminal velocity, which are visible in Figs. 7 –9 except for a few missing points. Therefore the diagnostic-*N*_{0} scheme characterizes rain evaporation, accretion, and rainfall processes more accurately than the fixed-*N*_{0} model for both heavy and light rainfall. By introducing the dependency of *N*_{0} on *W* based on observations, raindrop number concentration and total surface area of rain drops are better represented, leading to a better estimation of evaporation and accretion rates.

## 5. Summary and discussion

In this paper, we present a method for diagnosing the intercept parameter *N*_{0} of the exponential drop size distribution (DSD) based on water content *W*, and apply the diagnostic-*N*_{0} DSD model toward improving warm rain microphysical parameterization. The diagnostic relation is derived from a relation between two DSD moments that are estimated from 2D video disdrometer data. The DSD data were collected in Oklahoma during the summer seasons of 2005 and 2006, which should be representative for rain events in the central Great Plains region. The diagnostic *N*_{0}–*W* relation is used to improve the Kessler parameterization scheme of warm rain microphysics, and can be used in schemes containing ice phases also [e.g., those in commonly used schemes of Lin et al. (1983) and Hong et al. (2004)].

It has been shown that the diagnostic-*N*_{0} model better characterizes natural-rain DSDs, including the physical properties (e.g., *N _{t}*, and

*D*

_{0}) and microphysical processes. For a given water content, the diagnostic-

*N*

_{0}DSD model represents the total number concentration, median volume diameter, reflectivity factor, evaporation rate, and accretion rate more accurately than the MP model with a fixed

*N*

_{0}. Compared with the MP model–based Kessler scheme, the modified parameterization scheme with a diagnostic

*N*

_{0}has the following advantages: (i) it leads to less (more) evaporation for light (heavy) rain and therefore can preserve stratiform rain better in numerical models, and (ii) it yields a larger (smaller) reflectivity factor for light (heavy) rain, having the potential of yielding a better agreement between model-predicted and radar-observed reflectivities in a way similar to the simplified constrained Gamma model. Realistic simulation of reflectivity is important for assimilating radar reflectivity data into NWP models.

It is noted that the diagnostic *N*_{0}–*W* relation obtained in this paper is based on a specific set of disdrometer data in a specific climate region, dominated by convective rain events. While the methodology developed in this paper is general, the coefficients in the relation may require tuning for them to better fit specific regions and/or seasons or specific rain types. For example, the coefficient of (12) may need to be reduced by a factor of 2–3 to better represent stratiform rain characteristics. The improved parameterization based on the diagnostic-*N*_{0} model is now being tested within a mesoscale model for real events to examine its impact on precipitation forecasts; the results will be presented in the future.

## Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate the help of data collection from Drs. Edward Brandes, Terry Schuur, Robert Palmer, and Phillip Chilson and Ms. Kyoko Iketa. The sites for disdrometer deployment at the Kessler farm were provided by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program. This work was primarily supported by NSF Grant ATM-0608168. Ming Xue and Dan Dawson were also supported by NSF Grants ATM-0530814, ATM-0331594, and ATM-0331756.

## REFERENCES

Brandes, E. A., G. Zhang, and J. Sun, 2006: On the influence of assumed drop size distribution form on radar-retrieved thunderstorm microphysics.

,*J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol.***45****,**259–268.Cao, Q., G. Zhang, E. Brandes, T. Schuur, A. Ryzhkov, and K. Ikeda, 2008: Analysis of video disdrometer and polarimetric radar data to characterize rain microphysics in Oklahoma.

,*J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol.***47****,**2238–2255.Gilmore, M. S., J. M. Straka, and E. N. Rasmussen, 2004: Precipitation uncertainty due to variations in precipitation particle parameters within a simple microphysics scheme.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***132****,**2610–2627.Hong, S-Y., J. Dudhia, and S-H. Chen, 2004: A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds and precipitation.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***132****,**103–120.Kessler, E., 1969:

*On the Distribution and Continuity of Water Substance in Atmospheric Circulations*.*Meteor. Monogr.,*No. 32, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84 pp.Kruger, A., and W. F. Krajewski, 2002: Two-dimensional video disdrometer: A description.

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***19****,**602–617.Lin, Y-L., R. D. Farley, and H. D. Orville, 1983: Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model.

,*J. Climate Appl. Meteor.***22****,**1065–1092.Marshall, J. S., and W. Mc K. Palmer, 1948: The distribution of raindrops with size.

,*J. Meteor.***5****,**165–166.Meyers, M. P., R. L. Walko, J. R. Harrintong, and W. R. Cotton, 1997: New RAMS cloud microphysics parameterization. Part II: The two-moment scheme.

,*Atmos. Res.***45****,**3–39.Milbrandt, J. A., and M. K. Yau, 2005a: A multimoment bulk microphysics parameterization. Part I: Analysis of the role of the spectral shape parameter.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***62****,**3051–3064.Milbrandt, J. A., and M. K. Yau, 2005b: A multimoment bulk microphysics parameterization. Part II: A proposed three-moment closure and scheme description.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***62****,**3065–3081.Miller, M. J., and R. P. Pearce, 1974: A three-dimensional primitive equation model of cumulonimbus convection.

,*Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.***100****,**133–154.Sauvageot, H., and J-P. Lacaux, 1995: The shape of averaged drop size distributions.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***52****,**1070–1083.Seifert, A., 2005: On the shape-slope relation of drop size distributions in convective rain.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***44****,**1146–1151.Smith, P. L., and D. V. Kliche, 2005: The bias in moment estimators for parameters of drop size distribution functions: Sampling from exponential distributions.

,*J. Appl. Meteor.***44****,**1195–1205.Steiner, M., J. A. Smith, and R. Uijlenhoet, 2004: A microphysical interpretation of radar reflectivity–rain-rate relationships.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***61****,**1114–1131.Sun, J., and N. A. Crook, 1997: Dynamical and microphysical retrieval from Doppler radar observations using a cloud model and its adjoint. Part I: Model development and simulated data experiments.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***54****,**1642–1661.Thompson, G., R. M. Rasmussen, and K. Manning, 2004: Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part I: Description and sensitivity analysis.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***132****,**519–542.Tong, M., and M. Xue, 2008: Simultaneous estimation of microphysical parameters and atmospheric state with simulated radar data and ensemble square root Kalman filter. Part I: Sensitivity analysis and parameter identifiability.

,*Mon. Wea. Rev.***136****,**1630–1648.van den Heever, S. C., and W. R. Cotton, 2004: The impact of hail size on simulated supercell storms.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***61****,**1596–1609.Waldvogel, A., 1974: The N0 jump of raindrop spectra.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***31****,**1067–1078.Walko, R. L., W. R. Cotton, M. P. Meyers, and J. Y. Harrington, 1995: New RAMS cloud microphysics parameterization. Part I: The single-moment scheme.

,*Atmos. Res.***38****,**29–62.Zhang, G., J. Vivekanandan, and E. Brandes, 2001: A method for estimating rain rate and drop size distribution from polarimetric radar measurements.

,*IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.***39****,**830–841.Zhang, G., J. Vivekanandan, E. A. Brandes, R. Meneghini, and T. Kozu, 2003: The shape–slope relation in Gamma raindrop size distribution: Statistical error or useful information?

,*J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol.***20****,**1106–1119.Zhang, G., J. Sun, and E. A. Brandes, 2006: Improving parameterization of rain microphysics with disdrometer and radar observations.

,*J. Atmos. Sci.***63****,**1273–1290.

Dependence of *N*_{0} on *W*. Scattered points are fitted results from a pair of DSD moments. Straight lines are derived relations using the direct fitting method.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Dependence of *N*_{0} on *W*. Scattered points are fitted results from a pair of DSD moments. Straight lines are derived relations using the direct fitting method.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Dependence of *N*_{0} on *W*. Scattered points are fitted results from a pair of DSD moments. Straight lines are derived relations using the direct fitting method.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Interrelationships among DSD moments based on disdrometer measurements. Scattered points are direct estimates from disdrometer measurements. Straight lines represent fitted power-law relations. (a) M0–M3, (b) M2–M4, and (c) M3–M6.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Interrelationships among DSD moments based on disdrometer measurements. Scattered points are direct estimates from disdrometer measurements. Straight lines represent fitted power-law relations. (a) M0–M3, (b) M2–M4, and (c) M3–M6.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Interrelationships among DSD moments based on disdrometer measurements. Scattered points are direct estimates from disdrometer measurements. Straight lines represent fitted power-law relations. (a) M0–M3, (b) M2–M4, and (c) M3–M6.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Results of diagnostic *N*_{0}–*W* relations using the moment relation method. The results of the direct fitting approach and the Thompson et al. (2004) approach are shown for comparison.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Results of diagnostic *N*_{0}–*W* relations using the moment relation method. The results of the direct fitting approach and the Thompson et al. (2004) approach are shown for comparison.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Results of diagnostic *N*_{0}–*W* relations using the moment relation method. The results of the direct fitting approach and the Thompson et al. (2004) approach are shown for comparison.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Time series comparison of physical parameters: intercept parameter *N*_{0}, total number concentration *N _{t}*, water content

*W*, and median volume diameter

*D*

_{0}for a convective rain event starting on 21 Jul 2006. Results are shown for disdrometer measurements and fitted values using exponential, diagnostic-

*N*

_{0}, and fixed-

*N*

_{0}DSD models. Here, “A” and “B” correspond to strong and weak convection, respectively. Their DSDs are shown in Fig. 1.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Time series comparison of physical parameters: intercept parameter *N*_{0}, total number concentration *N _{t}*, water content

*W*, and median volume diameter

*D*

_{0}for a convective rain event starting on 21 Jul 2006. Results are shown for disdrometer measurements and fitted values using exponential, diagnostic-

*N*

_{0}, and fixed-

*N*

_{0}DSD models. Here, “A” and “B” correspond to strong and weak convection, respectively. Their DSDs are shown in Fig. 1.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Time series comparison of physical parameters: intercept parameter *N*_{0}, total number concentration *N _{t}*, water content

*W*, and median volume diameter

*D*

_{0}for a convective rain event starting on 21 Jul 2006. Results are shown for disdrometer measurements and fitted values using exponential, diagnostic-

*N*

_{0}, and fixed-

*N*

_{0}DSD models. Here, “A” and “B” correspond to strong and weak convection, respectively. Their DSDs are shown in Fig. 1.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 5 but for a stratiform rain event on 6 Nov 2006. Here, “C” is identified as stratiform rain whose DSD is shown in Fig. 1.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 5 but for a stratiform rain event on 6 Nov 2006. Here, “C” is identified as stratiform rain whose DSD is shown in Fig. 1.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 5 but for a stratiform rain event on 6 Nov 2006. Here, “C” is identified as stratiform rain whose DSD is shown in Fig. 1.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Comparison of rain physical process parameters for a unit saturation deficit and cloud water mixing ratio between the diagnostic-*N*_{0} and fixed DSD models. (a) *R _{e}* and

*R*(kg kg

_{c}^{−1}s

^{−1}), and

*V*

_{tm}(m s

^{−1}), and (b) reflectivity

*Z*(mm

^{6}m

^{−3}).

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Comparison of rain physical process parameters for a unit saturation deficit and cloud water mixing ratio between the diagnostic-*N*_{0} and fixed DSD models. (a) *R _{e}* and

*R*(kg kg

_{c}^{−1}s

^{−1}), and

*V*

_{tm}(m s

^{−1}), and (b) reflectivity

*Z*(mm

^{6}m

^{−3}).

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Comparison of rain physical process parameters for a unit saturation deficit and cloud water mixing ratio between the diagnostic-*N*_{0} and fixed DSD models. (a) *R _{e}* and

*R*(kg kg

_{c}^{−1}s

^{−1}), and

*V*

_{tm}(m s

^{−1}), and (b) reflectivity

*Z*(mm

^{6}m

^{−3}).

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 5 but for evaporation rate for a unit vapor saturation deficit *R _{e}*, accretion rate

*R*for a unit cloud water content, and mass-weighted terminal velocity

_{c}*V*

_{tm}.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 5 but for evaporation rate for a unit vapor saturation deficit *R _{e}*, accretion rate

*R*for a unit cloud water content, and mass-weighted terminal velocity

_{c}*V*

_{tm}.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 5 but for evaporation rate for a unit vapor saturation deficit *R _{e}*, accretion rate

*R*for a unit cloud water content, and mass-weighted terminal velocity

_{c}*V*

_{tm}.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 8 but for the stratiform rain event on 6 Nov 2006.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 8 but for the stratiform rain event on 6 Nov 2006.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

As in Fig. 8 but for the stratiform rain event on 6 Nov 2006.

Citation: Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 47, 11; 10.1175/2008JAMC1876.1

Coefficients of diagnostic *N*_{0}–*W* relations.

Comparison of relative errors of moment estimates.

Parameterization of warm rain processes with diagnostic *N*_{0} and fixed *N*_{0}.