Fig. 2.3.2.1. Flash Flood Forecast System In The United States=21,131,1

Fig. 2.3.2.2. FFG Example In The United States=21,131,1

Fig. 2.3.2.3. FFG Example Is Based On Watershed In The United States=22,132,1

Fig. 3.1.1.1. The Flow Diagram Of KLAPS 3-Dimensional Cloud Analysis (From Albers Et Al. 1996)=26,136,1

Fig. 3.1.1.2. Schematic Diagram Illustrating The Contributions Of The Various Data Sources In The KLAPS Cloud Analysis (From Albers Et Al. 1996)=27,137,1

Fig. 3.1.1.3. The Horizontal And Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover From (a, c) Cloud And (b, d) Relative Humidity As The Model 1st Guess Fields=29,139,1

Fig. 3.1.1.4. The Horizontal And Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover With (a, c) 400 km Or (b, d) 100 km Radius Of Influence Of METAR (Cross Point) Data, Respectively=30,140,1

Fig. 3.1.1.5. GMS Infrared Image For 18UTC 06 August 2002=31,141,1

Fig. 3.1.1.6. The (a) Horizontal And (b) Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover Analysis After Inserting The Satellite IR Imagery Data=32,142,1

Fig. 3.1.1.7. Flow Diagram Of Fields Derived Primarily From The KLAPS Three Dimensional Cloud Cover Analysis (From Albers Et Al., 1996)=33,143,1

Fig. 3.1.1.8. Cloud Vertical Motion Profiles For Cumuliform Clouds Of Three Heights (1 km, 3 km, And 5 km). Note That The Parabolic Shape Begins Slightly Below Cloud Base (From Albers Et Al., 1996)=34,144,1

Fig. 3.1.1.9. The Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Liquid Water/Ice (g/kg) And Vertical Velocity ω (μbar/s) With Maximum Velocity (a) 0.5 m/s And (b) 1 m/s. The Dotted Lines Show The Upward Motions=35,145,1

Fig. 3.1.1.10. The Schematic Diagram Of Balance Algorithm Between Wind, Mass And Cloud Derived ω=36,146,1

Fig. 3.1.1.11. The Cycle Of Short-Range Analysis And Prediction System=38,148,1

Fig. 3.1.1.12. The Model Domain And Terrain Height=39,149,1

Fig. 3.1.1.13. Daily Rainfall Amounts At 5 Cities For July And August, 2002=40,150,1

Fig. 3.1.1.14. The Initial And Hourly Forecast Fields Of Vertically Integrated Cloud (Cloud Water /Ice) Derived By (a~d) Schultz, (e~h) Reisner II And (i~l) WRF Single Momentum Scheme, Respectively=41,151,1

Fig. 3.1.1.15. The Area Averaged Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Water/Ice Mixing Ratio=42,152,1

Fig. 3.1.1.16. The Vertical And 850 hPa Distribution Of Cloud Cover Derived By First Guess From (a, c) Cloud And (b, d) Relative Humidity, Respectively=43,153,1

Fig. 3.1.1.17. The (a) Vertical And (b) 850 hPa Distribution Of Cloud Cover With 400 km Radius Of Influence Of METAR (Cross Point) Data=44,154,1

Fig. 3.1.1.18. The Initial And Hourly Forecasted Vertical Cross Section Of Cloud (Cloud Water/Ice) With Maximum Vertical Velocity Of (a~d) 0.5 m/s, (e~h) 1.0 m/s And (i~l) 5.0 m/s, Respectively=45,155,1

Fig. 3.1.1.19. The 3 Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For (a) AWS Observation And (b~e) Each Experiments Valid At 00UTC August 7, 2002=47,157,1

Fig. 3.1.1.20. The 3 Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For (a) AWS Observation And Each (b~e) Experiments Valid At 00UTC July 14, 2002=47,157,1

Fig. 3.1.1.21. The Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For (a, b) CNTL And (c, d) Restart At 18UTC, 19UTC August 6, 2002, Respectively=48,158,1

Fig. 3.1.1.22. The 3 Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For (a, e) AWS Observations, (b, f) CNTL, (c, g) EXP02 And (d, h) Nudging At 21UTC July 13 And 00UTC July 14, 2002, Respectively=49,159,1

Fig. 3.1.1.23. Distribution Of AWS Sites Used For Precipitation Verification=50,160,1

Fig. 3.1.1.24. Threat And Bias Score Of CNTL And EXP02 Experiment For 3-Hour Accumulated Precipitation For The Period From July To August, 2002=51,161,1

Fig. 3.1.1.25. Same As Fig. 3.1.1.24 Except For Nudging Experiment For The Period From 5 To 15 August, 2002=52,162,1

Fig. 3.1.1.26. The Flow Diagram Of KLAPS Surface Analysis=56,166,1

Fig. 3.1.1.27. Schematic Diagram Showing The Basic Idea Of (a) HSM (Birkenheuer, 1996) And (b) Cubic Spline Fit (Fritsch, 1971)=58,168,1

Fig. 3.1.1.28. Analyzed Domain And Observational Data (GOES Infra Red Image And Surface Temperature Observation). White Represents The Region Of Cloud=60,170,1

Fig. 3.1.1.29. The Comparison Between Surface Temperature And Satellite Brightness Temperature At Dong-Hae On 17 Feb., 2004=61,171,1

Fig. 3.1.1.30. (a) The Barnes Surface Temperature Analysis, (c) Including HSM Technique To Barnes And (b) The Difference Between Two Analyses On 1200 UTC 17 February 2004=62,172,1

Fig. 3.1.1.31. The Analyzed Field Of Surface Temperature Using All AWS Data On 0000 UTC 28 April 2004=63,173,1

Fig. 3.1.1.32. The Same As Fig. 3.1.1.30 Except For 0000 UTC 28 April 2004=63,173,1

Fig. 3.1.1.33. RMS Temperature Error According To The Number Of Observational Data. Dotted Line Is The Experiment With HSM And Solid Line Is The Experiment Without HSM=64,174,1

Fig. 3.1.1.34. The Process Of Variational Analysis For Surface Pressure And Wind=66,176,1

Fig. 3.1.1.35. The Structure Of SRAPS 6-hr Assimilation Cycle=67,177,1

Fig. 3.1.1.36. The Domain (6 km, 115×115) And Used Surface Observational Data. Crosses And Dot Indicate The GTS SYNOP And BUOY, And ASOS Stations, Respectively. The Dot With Cross Is Duplicated Station By GTS And AWS=67,177,1

Fig. 3.1.1.37. KLAPS Surface Pressure Analysis Fields (a) With Variational Analysis And (b) Without Variational Analysis On 0600 UTC 25 Jun. 2003=68,178,1

Fig. 3.1.1.38. KLAPS Surface Pressure Analysis Fields (a) With Variational Analysis (b) And Without Variational Analysis, And The (c) Pressure And (d) Wind Difference Field Between (a) And (b) Over Deogyu Mt Region (2km, 100×100) On 0600 UTC 25 Jun. 2003=69,179,1

Fig. 3.1.1.39. KLAPS Surface Wind And Pressure Analysis Fields (a) Not Using Variational Analysis Method And (b) Using Variational Analysis Method On 0600 UTC 27 Jun., 2003=70,180,1

Fig. 3.1.1.40. The Location Of (a) East-West And (b) South-North Cross Section For Analyzing Cold And Warm Front. (c,d) And (e,f) Are The Outputs Each With And Without Variational Analysis. And (g) And (h) Are The Differences Between (c) And (d), And (e) And (f) On 0900 UTC 27 Jun. 2003=71,181,1

Fig. 3.1.1.41. AWS Observational Data Of Sea Level Pressure (Pink) And The Initial 6hr-Forecast Of Surface Pressure Of Control(without Variational Analysis Method, Black Dashed) And Experimental (With Variational Analysis Method, Red Solid) SRAPS At (c) Seoul And (d) Daejeon Station On 0600 UTC 27 June 2003=72,182,1

Fig. 3.1.1.42. Observational Images Of (a) Radar Reflectivity And (b) GOES IR. And The 6hr-Forecast Of 3hr Accumulation Precipitation Of (c) Control (Without Variational Analysis Method), (d) Experimental (With Variational Analysis Method) MM5 Model And (e) Difference Between (c) And (d) (exp.-cnt.) On 0600 UTC 27 Jun., 2003=73,183,1

Fig. 3.1.2.1. Distribution Of Radar Sites=76,186,1

Fig. 3.1.2.2. The Flow Diagram Of Composition Of Radar Reflectivity=78,188,1

Fig. 3.1.2.3. Maximum Radar Reflectivity For Baekryongdo (a), Donghae (b), Gunsan (c), Gwanaksan (d), Gosan (e) And Busan (f) Site At 00 UTC 22 July, 2002=79,189,1

Fig. 3.1.2.4. Maximum (a) And Vertical (b) Radar Reflectivity At 00 UTC 22 July, 2002=79,189,1

Fig. 3.1.2.5. The Horizontal (850 hPa) And Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover Of The First Guess Fields (a,c) And Analysis (b,d) After Inserting The Satellite And METAR Data=81,191,1

Fig. 3.1.2.6. The Horizontal (850 hPa) And Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover Analysis And 1hour Simulated Rainfall Amount After Inserting Radar Reflectivity With 0 dBZ (a,d,g), 13 dBZ (Lower), 20 dBZ (Upper) (b,e,h), 30 dBZ (Lower), 40 dBZ (Upper) (c,f,i) Threshold=82,192,1

Fig. 3.1.2.7. The Cycle Of Short-Range Analysis And Prediction System=83,193,1

Fig. 3.1.2.8. The Model Domain And Terrain Height=84,194,1

Fig. 3.1.2.9. Daily Rainfall Amounts At 5 Cities For July And August, 2002=85,195,1

Fig. 3.1.2.10. The Analysis And 1 Hour Simulated Field Of 750 hPa Wind And Vertical Velocity For CTL(a,e), EXP1 (b,f), EXP2 (c,g) And EXP3 (d,h), Respectively=87,197,1

Fig. 3.1.2.11. Same As Fig. 3.1.2.10. Except For 850 hPa Wind And Simulated Reflectivity=87,197,1

Fig. 3.1.2.12. Same As Fig. 3.1.2.10. Except For Vertical Cross Section Of Wind And Simulated Reflectivity Along The AA' In Fig. 3.1.2.11 (h)=88,198,1

Fig. 3.1.2.13. The Domain Averaged Vertical Distributions Of Cloud Water/Ice Mixing Ratio (a,b) And Rain, Snow, Graupel Mixing Ratio (c,d) For Analysis (a,c) And 1 Hour Simulated Field (b,d), Respectively=88,198,1

Fig. 3.1.2.14. The Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For AWS Observation (a) And CTL (b), EXP1 (c), EXP2 (d) And EXP3 (e) Experiments Valid At 01 UTC July 22, 2002=89,199,1

Fig. 3.1.2.15. The Same As Fig. 3.1.2.14. Except For 02 UTC July 22, 2002=90,200,1

Fig. 3.1.2.16. The Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For CTL (a,b,c) And Restart (d,e,f) Experiment Without Cloud And Precipitation At 06 UTC, 07 UTC And 08 UTC July 22, 2002, Respectively=90,200,1

Fig. 3.1.2.17. Threat (a,b) And Bias (c,d) Score Of C18N6, H18N6 And H18H6 Experiment For The Threshold 2.54 mm (a,c) And 12.7 mm (b,d), Respectively=92,202,1

Fig. 3.1.2.18. The Model Domain And Terrain Height=97,207,1

Fig. 3.1.2.19. The Flow Diagram Of Assimilation On MM5=98,208,1

Fig. 3.1.2.20. Surface Charts At 6-h Intervals From 0000 UTC 24 June To 0600 UTC 25 June 2004=100,210,1

Fig. 3.1.2.21. AWS 1-Hour Accumulated Rainfall At 3-h Intervals From 0300 UTC 24 June To 1800 UTC 25 June 2004=101,211,1

Fig. 3.1.2.22. Enhanced Infrared Images From The GOES-9 Satellite At 3-h Intervals From 1800 UTC 23 June To 0900 UTC 24 June 2004=101,211,1

Fig. 3.1.2.23. Satellite-Derived Rain Rates From SSM/I At 0054 UTC 24 June 2004 (a) And Radar Rain Rates At 0050 UTC 24 June 2004 (b)=102,212,1

Fig. 3.1.2.24. Design Of Numerical Experiments For CASE I=102,212,1

Fig. 3.1.2.25. The 1-hour Accumulated Precipitation At (a) 0100 UTC, (b) 0200 UTC, (c) 0300 UTC, And (d) 0400 UTC 24 June 2004 For The Control Run ; The 1-Hour Accumulated Precipitation At (e) 0100 UTC, (e) 0200 UTC, (f) 0300 UTC, And (g) 0400 UTC 24 June 2004 For The Experiment Run=104,214,1

Fig. 3.1.2.26. The Differences Of Sea-Level Pressure Between Control Run And Experiment Run At (a) 0100 UTC, (b) 0200 UTC, (c) 0300 UTC, And (d) 0400 UTC 24 June 2004 (0.1 hPa Interval)=105,215,1

Fig. 3.1.2.27. The Same As Fig. 3.1.2.26 Except For Th Temperature At 500 hPa Level (0.1 K Interval)=106,216,1

Fig. 3.1.2.28. The Time Series Of Mean Temperature (a), Mixing Ratio (b) And Vertical Velocity (c) Within 30˚N~35˚N And 120˚E~130˚E Area (Solid Lines For Control Run And Dotted Lines For Assimilation Run)=107,217,1

Fig. 3.1.2.29. The Temporally And Spatially Averaged Differences Of Temperature (a), Mixing Ratio (b) And Vertical Velocity (c) Between Control Run And Assimilation Run Within 30˚N~35˚N And 120˚E~130˚E Area During 6 Hours After Assimilation=108,218,1

Fig. 3.1.2.30. The 10-Minute Accumulated Precipitation Over 30˚N~35˚N And 120˚E~130˚E Area And The Ratio Of Precipitation By Cumulus Parameterization Scheme And Microphysics Scheme For Control(a) And Experiment(b)=108,218,1

Fig. 3.1.2.31. Surface Charts At 6-h Intervals From 1800 UTC 18 June To 0000 UTC 20 June 2004=110,220,1

Fig. 3.1.2.32. Enhanced Infrared Images From The GOES-9 Satellite At 1-h Interval From 2100 UTC 18 June To 0200 UTC 19 June 2004=111,221,1

Fig. 3.1.2.33. Satellite-Derived Rain Rates From SSM/I At 2306 UTC 18 June 2004 (a) And Radar Rain Rate At 2310 UTC 18 June 2004 (b)=111,221,1

Fig. 3.1.2.34. Design Of Numerical Experiments For Case II=112,222,1

Fig. 3.1.2.35. The 1-hour Accumulated Precipitation At (a) 2300 UTC 18, (b) 0000 UTC 19, (c) 0100 UTC 19 And (d) 0200 UTC 19 June 2004 For The Control Run ; The 1-hour Accumulated Precipitation At (a) 2300 UTC 18, (b) 0000 UTC 19, (c) 0100 UTC 19 And (d) 0200 UTC 19 June 2004 For the Experiment Run=113,223,1

Fig. 3.1.2.36. The Time Series Of (a) Mean Temperature, (b) Mixing Ratio And (c) Vertical Velocity Within 30˚N~40˚N And 120˚E~130˚E Area (Solid Lines For Control Run And Dotted Lines For Assimilation Run)=114,224,1

Fig. 3.1.2.37. The 10-Minute Accumulated Precipitation Over 30˚N~40˚N And 120˚E~130˚E Area And The Ratio Of Precipitation By Cumulus Parameterization Scheme And Microphysics Scheme For Control(a) And Experiment(b)=115,225,1

Fig. 3.1.2.38. Satellite-Derived Rain Rates From DMSP (a) F13, (b) F14 And (c) P15=117,227,1

Fig. 3.1.2.39. Design Of Numerical Experiments For Case III=117,227,1

Fig. 3.1.2.40. Typhoon Tracks For Typhoon Dianmu=118,228,1

Fig. 3.1.2.41. Time Series Of Surface Central Pressure Forecasts For Typhoon Dianmu=118,228,1

Fig. 3.1.2.42. Scattering Diagram Of Observation Departure From 6 hour Forecasts For (a) Temperature At 500 Hpa, (b) Mixing Ration At 850hPa, (c) U-Wind At 200 hPa And (d) Hourly Accumulated Precipitation=120,230,1

Fig. 3.1.2.43. Shapes Of Probability For (a) Gaussian Probability Density Function, (b) Truncated Gaussian Probability Density Function And (c) Log-Normal Probability Density Function=121,231,1

Fig. 3.1.2.44. Cross-Section Of Probability=123,233,1

Fig. 3.1.3.1. The Location Of The Radar (Square Marks) And Raingauge (Triangle Marks), The Radar Cover Range (Curve Line) And The Domain Of VSRF (Inner Square Line)=128,238,1

Fig. 3.1.3.2. The Flowchart Of Blending Process=129,239,1

Fig. 3.1.3.3. The Schematic Diagram Of Concept For 2-Dimentional Pattern Distance=130,240,1

Fig. 3.1.3.4. The Graphs Of The Function For (a) Hyperbolic Tangent And (b) Transformed Hyperbolic Tangent=132,242,1

Fig. 3.1.3.5. The Temporal Weighting Function For Appling To The Blending Process=133,243,1

Fig. 3.1.3.6. Threat Scores Of VSRF, SRAPS And Blending. The Initial Time Is 0600 UTC 27 June 2003=135,245,1

Fig. 3.1.3.7. The Comparison Of The Precipitation Of (a) AWS, (b)VSRF, (c)SRAPS And (d) Blending For 1100 UTC 27 June 2003. The Threshold Used Is 5 mm/h=136,246,1

Fig. 3.1.3.8. The Same As Fig.3.1.3.7 Except For 1200 UTC 27 June 2003=137,247,1

Fig. 3.1.3.9. The Averaged Threat Score Of Precipitation For 1mm (Open Marks) And 5mm (Filled Marks) Threshold From 24 June To 4 July 2003 That Belong To Jangma=138,248,1

Fig. 3.1.3.10. The Time Series Of (a) Bias Score, (b) FAR, (c) POD And (d) ACC In The South Korea Region. The Initial Time Is 0600 UTC 27 June 2003. The Threshold Used Is 5 mm/h. The Dot-Dot-Dashed Line Denotes The Score Of SRAPS (Circle), The Dashed Line Denotes The Score Of VSRF (Square) And The Solild Line Denotes The Score Of Blending (Triangle)=139,249,1

Fig. 3.1.3.11. The Same As Fig. 3.1.3.10 Except For The Period From 24 June 2003 To 4 July 2003=140,250,1

Fig. 3.1.3.12. The Seasonally Averaged Threat Score For (a) BSRPS And (b) DSRPS During Summer (6,7,8). The Used Data Are Not Same Number Of Dates For Each Model=142,252,1

Fig. 3.1.3.13. The Evolution Of Precipitation Of AWS, VSRF, SRAPS And Blending From 1500 UTC 10 July 2003=143,253,1

Fig. 3.1.3.14. Scheme Of The Calculation Loop TOPLATS For Each Time Step=145,255,1

Fig. 3.1.3.15. The Scheme Of The (a) Water And (b) Energy Balance In TOPLATS=147,257,1

Fig. 3.1.3.16. The (a) Position, (b) Orography (m), (c) Topographic Index, And (d) Land Use For The Wonju Domain. The Arrowes Of (c) Denote The Direction Of River Flow=148,258,1

Fig. 3.1.3.17. Schematic Diagram Of Prototype KLDAS At Each Time Step=150,260,1

Fig. 3.1.3.18. Time-Series Of Soil Moisture Simulated By The TOPLATS And TOPMODEL KLDAS At Yangpyeong Station. Hollow Circles Denote The Observed Soil Moisture=152,262,1

Fig. 3.1.3.19. The Surface Soil Moistures Generated By The (a) 315-Step And (b) 333-Step TOPLATS KLDAS Running And The (c) 315-Step TOPMODEL KLDAS Running, And The (d) USGS Summer Surface Soil Moisture For The Wonju Domain. The Time Of (a) And (c) Is 21 LT 28 June, And That Of (b) Is 6 LT 3 July In 2003=153,263,1

Fig. 3.1.3.20. The Skin Temperature (Upper), Surface Energy Fluxes (Middle), And Rain (Lower) Generated By The TOPLATS KLDAS At The Wonju Station. Here Rn, G, LE, And H Are The Incoming Net Radiation, Groud Heat, Outgoing Latent Heat, And Sensible Heat, Respectively=155,265,1

Fig. 3.1.3.21. Erosion Threshold Wind Velocities As A Function Of The Gravimetric Soil Moisture. Data From (2): Bisal And Hsieh (1966); (5): Chen Et Al. (1996). (From Fecan Et Al, 1999)(이미지 참조)=158,268,1

Fig. 3.1.3.22. Soil Moisture Fields Of NCEP Reanalysis-2 Data At March 9, 2004 And March 21, 2002 When Asian Dust Happened. Negative Values Are Shaded In Difference Field (c), (f). (c＝a-b, f＝d-e)=159,269,1

Fig. 3.1.3.23. Surface Weather Chart At 00 UTC March 10, 2004=161,271,1

Fig. 3.1.3.24. Model Domain And Its Soil Types=163,273,1

Fig. 3.1.3.25. Difference Of Relative Humidity (%) Between LSM And CTL At (a) 00 UTC March 10 And (b) 00 UTC March 11, 2004. Negative Values Are Shaded=165,275,1

Fig. 3.1.3.26. As In Fig. 3.1.3.25 Except For 2 m Temperature (K)=165,275,1

Fig. 3.1.3.27. As In Fig. 3.1.3.25 Except For 10 m Wind(m/s)=166,276,1

Fig. 3.1.3.28. As In Fig. 3.1.3.25 Except For Water Vapor Mixing Ratio(g/kg)=167,277,1

Fig. 3.1.3.29. Surface Weather Chart At 12 UTC June 18, 2004=169,279,1

Fig. 3.1.3.30. AWS Daily Rainfall (mm) At (a) June 19 And (b) 20, 2004=169,279,1

Fig. 3.1.3.31. The Satellite IR Image Of GOES-9 At 12 UTC June 18, 2004=170,280,1

Fig. 3.1.3.32. Multi Nested Model Domains And Its Landuse Type=170,280,1

Fig. 3.1.3.33. 6h Accumulated Rainfall (mm) Of CTL And LSM During Simulation Period=172,282,1

Fig. 3.1.3.34. Soil Moisture Fields Of SM1(5 cm Below Surface), SM2(25 cm), SM3(70 cm), And SM4(150 cm) During Simulation Period=173,283,1

Fig. 3.1.3.35. Time Series Of 30 Min Rainfall(mm) And Soil Moisture At Majang Station=174,284,1

Fig. 3.1.3.36. Time Series Of Surface Latent Heat Flux(W/㎡) Of CTL And LSM At Majang Station=174,284,1

Fig. 3.1.3.37. Time Series Of (a) 1h Rainfall(mm) And Temperature(℃) Of AWS And (b) 2 m Temperature(℃) Of Simulation CTL And LSM At Majang Station=175,285,1

Fig. 3.1.3.38. 6h Accumulated Rainfall(mm) Of (a) AVN CTL, (b) NCEP2 CTL, (c) AVN LSM, (d) NCEP2 LSM And AWS(Left) At 00 UTC June 20, 2004=176,286,1

Fig. 3.1.3.39. The Diagram Of FDDA=177,287,1

Fig. 3.1.3.40. Model Domain For This Study=178,288,1

Fig. 3.1.3.41. 6h Rainfall (mm) Of (a) 3B42RT Data, (b) FDDA And (c) AWS At 00 UTC July 12, 2004=179,289,1

Fig. 3.1.3.42. As In Fig. 3.1.3.41 Except At 00 UTC August 18, 2004=180,290,1

Fig. 3.1.3.43. Time Series Of Solar Radiation (W/㎡) At Daegwallyeong Station From April 1 To August 31, 2004=180,290,1

Fig. 3.1.3.44. Time Series Of 6h Rainfall And Soil Moisture (SM1-0.05 m, SM2-0.25 m, SM3-0.70 m, And SM4-1.50 m Below Ground) At (a) The Southwest Of China And (b) The Middle Of Korea From 1 April 2004 To 30 September 2005=181,291,1

Fig. 3.1.3.45. Surface Weather Chart At 00 UTC July 8, 2005=182,292,1

Fig. 3.1.3.46. 60h Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) CTL, (b) LSM, And (c) FSM=183,293,1

Fig. 3.1.3.47. Soil Moisture Field (0.05 m Below Ground) At Initial Time, July 8, 2005. (a) FSM, (b) LSM, And (c) Its Difference Between FSM And LSM=184,294,1

Fig. 3.1.3.48. Difference Fields Of Surface Water Vapor Mixing Ratio (g/kg) At Initial Time, July 8, 2005 (a) Between FSM And CTL, And (b) Between FSM And LSM=184,294,1

Fig. 3.1.3.49. As Fig. 3.1.3.48 Except For 2 m Temperature (K)=185,295,1

Fig. 3.1.3.50. As Fig. 3.1.3.48 Except For 850 mb Wind=185,295,1

Fig. 3.1.3.51. As Fig. 3.1.3.48 Except For 850 mb Temperature (K)=186,296,1

Fig. 3.1.3.52. Input And Output Of LAPS LSM=193,303,1

Fig. 3.1.3.53. A Time Series Of Soil Moisture Field. Time Intervals Are 3 Hours=193,303,1

Fig. 3.1.3.54. Soil Type Table=194,304,1

Fig. 3.1.3.55. A Time Series Of Soil Moisture Analysis Field Using LAPS LSM At One Point(Seoul)=195,305,1

Fig. 3.1.3.56. Observed Soil Moisture And Precipitation At Cholwon=196,306,1

Fig. 3.1.3.57. Map Of Soil Type In The 6km Resolution=196,306,1

Fig. 3.1.4.1. The Procedure For Estimating The New Analysis States With EnKF=200,310,1

Fig. 3.1.4.2. Example Of EnKF Experiment: Observation Number Is 10, Ensemble Member Is 100=204,314,1

Fig. 3.1.4.3. Time Evolution For RMS Residuals Over Several Ensemble Member Cases=205,315,1

Fig. 3.1.4.4. Time Evolution For RMS Residuals Over Several Initial Ensemble Member Cases=206,316,1

Fig. 3.1.4.5. Time Evolution For RMS Residuals Over Standard EnKF Analysis, Square Root Algorithm And Square Root Algorithm Using 600 Initial Ensemble Member Case=206,316,1

Fig. 3.1.4.6. EnKF Experiments For Correlation Between Model Errors And Observations Errors=208,318,1

Fig. 3.1.4.7. Ensemble Singular Vector Spectra For The Low-Rank Issue Experiments=211,321,1

Fig. 3.1.4.8. Ensemble Singular Vector Spector For The Experiment Of Square Root Algorithm And Stable Pseudo-Inverse Algorithm. Ensemble Member Is 100=212,322,1

Fig. 3.1.4.9. Time Evolution For RMS Residuals For Three Algorithm (Standard, Square Root, And Pseudo-Inverse Algorithm)=212,322,1

Fig. 3.1.4.10. Meridional Cross-Section Through The Zonal Mean Reference State For Zonal Wind (uref) And PT (θref) In QG Channel Model(이미지 참조)=214,324,1

Fig. 3.1.4.11. Illustration Of The Nonlinear, Tangent Linear, And Adjoint Model Calculation Procedure. Input And Output Variables To Calculate Each Model Are Also Shown=219,329,1

Fig. 3.1.4.12. Analysis Increment Of Zonal Wind At Level 3 In The 3DVAR For A Single Observation At The Middle Level In The QG Model. Longitude Is Plotted On The x-Axis And Latitude On The y-Axis. Positive Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Dashed Lines=228,338,1

Fig. 3.1.4.13. Analysis Increment Of Meridional Wind At Level 3 In The 3DVAR For A Single Observation At The Middle Level In The QG Model. Longitude Is Plotted On The x-Axis And Latitude On The y-Axis. Positive Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Dashed Lines=228,338,1

Fig. 3.1.4.14. Analysis Increment Of Temperature At Level 3 In The 3DVAR For A Single Observation At The Middle Level In The QG Model. Longitude Is Plotted On The x-Axis And Latitude On The y-Axis. Positive Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Dashed Lines=229,339,1

Fig. 3.1.4.15. Analysis Increment Of Potential Vorticity At Level 3 In The 3DVAR For A Single Observation At The Middle Level In The QG Model. Longitude Is Plotted On The x-Axis And Latitude On The y-Axis. Positive Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Dashed Lines=229,339,1

Fig. 3.1.4.16. Analysis Increment Of Zonal Wind At The Lower Boundary In The 3DVAR For A Single Observation At The Middle Level In The QG Model. Longitude Is Plotted On The x-Axis And Latitude On The y-Axis. Positive Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Dashed Lines=230,340,1

Fig. 3.1.4.17. Analysis Increment Of Meridional Wind At The Lower Boundary In The 3DVAR For A Single Observation At The Middle Level In The QG Model. Longitude Is Plotted On The x-Axis And Latitude On The y-Axis. Positive Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Dashed Lines=230,340,1

Fig. 3.1.4.18. Analysis Increment Of Temperature At The Lower Boundary In The 3DVAR For A Single Observation At The Middle Level In The QG Model. Longitude Is Plotted On The x-Axis And Latitude On The y-Axis. Positive Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Dashed Lines=231,341,1

Fig. 3.1.4.19. Analysis Increment Of Potential Temperature At The Lower Boundary In The 3DVAR For A Single Observation At The Middle Level In The QG Model. Longitude Is Plotted On The x-Axis And Latitude On The y-Axis. Positive Contours Are Solid Lines And Negative Contours Are Dashed Lines=231,341,1

Fig. 3.1.4.20. Horizontal Cross Sections Of The QG Model True State Streamfunction At (a) Top And (c) Bottom Of The Domain At t＝0h And At (b) Top And (d) Bottom Of The Domain At t＝48h=232,342,1

Fig. 3.1.4.21. PV Error At Level 3 At Selected Times: (a) t＝0h, (b) t＝12h, (c) t＝24h, (d) t＝36h, (e) t＝42h, And (f) t＝48h=233,343,1

Fig. 3.1.4.22. Adjoint Sensitivity (Or Gradient Sensitivity) Of Forecast Error With Respect To The Initial And Forecast Model States At Level 3 At Selected Times: (a) t＝0h, (b) t＝12h, (c) t＝24h, (d) t＝36h, (e) t＝42h, And (F) t＝48h=234,344,1

Fig. 3.1.4.23. Singular Vector And Its Evolved Disturbances At Level 3 At Selected Times: (a) t＝0h, (b) t＝12h, (c) t＝24h, (d) t＝36h, (e) t＝42h, And (f) t＝48h=235,345,1

Fig. 3.1.4.24. Fixed Observation Locations Used To Generate The Simulated Rawinsonde Observations=236,346,1

Fig. 3.1.4.25. RMS Forecast Errors At t＝0, 24, And 48h Produced By Fixed Observation And By Adaptive Strategies Based On The Error, The Adjoint Sensitivity, And The Singular Vectors For 16 Fixed And 16 Adaptive Observations=236,346,1

Fig. 3.1.5.1. 13-h Forecast Of 1-hr Accumulated Precipitation By (a) MM5 And (b) WRF Models With 18 km Resolution At 1300 UTC 6 Aug. 2003. (c) Infrared Satellite Image For 1230 UTC 6 Aug 2003 And (d) AWS 1hr Accumulated Precipitation=239,349,1

Fig. 3.1.5.2. 24-hForecast Of 6-hr Accumulated Precipitation By (a) MM5 And (b) WRF Models With 9 km Resolution At 1200 UTC 31 Aug. 2002. (c) Infrared Satellite Image For 11 UTC 31 Aug 2002 And (d) AWS 6-hr Accumulated Precipitation=240,350,1

Fig. 3.1.5.3. 25-h Forecast Of 1hr Accumulated Precipitation By (a) MM5 And (b) WRF Models With 9 km Resolution At 0700 UTC 22 Jul 2002=241,351,1

Fig. 3.1.5.4. The Surface Analysis At (a) 1200 UTC 26 Jun, (b) 1200 UTC 27 Jun, (c) 1200 UTC 8 Jul, (d) 1200 UTC 9 Jul, (e) 0000 UTC 24 Jul And (f) 0000 UTC 25 Jul 2003 By KMA Showing Surface Pressure (Solid Lines Every 4 hPa)=244,354,1

Fig. 3.1.5.5. 15-h Forecast Of 3hr Accumulate Rain By MM5 For (a),(c) And (e) And By WRF For (b),(d) And (f) WrRF At 0300 UTC 27 Jun 2003. Horizontal Resolutions Are (a),(b) 18 km And (c),(d),(e),(f) 9 km. The Physics Option Of (a),(b),(c) And (d) With Cumulus Parameterization And Microphysics, And (e) And (f) With Only Microphysics=246,356,1

Fig. 3.1.5.6. Observed 3hr Accumulated Precipitation (Left) Same Time As Fig. 3.1.5.5 And Enhanced Infrared Satellite Image (Right) At 0200 UTC 27 Jun 2003=247,357,1

Fig. 3.1.5.7. 18-h Forecast Of 3 hr Accumulate Rain By (a), (c), (e) MM5 And (b), (d), (f) WRF At 0600 UTC 9 Jul 2003. Horizontal Resolutions Are (a), (b) 18 km And (c), (d), (e), (f) 9 km. The Physics Option Of (a), (b), (c), (d) With Cumulus Parameteriz And Microphysics, And (e), (f) With Only Microphysics=248,358,1

Fig. 3.1.5.8. Observed 3 hr Accumulate Precipitation (Left) Same Time As Fig. 3.1.5.7 And Enhanced Infrared Satellite Image (Right) At 0430 UTC 9 Jul 2003=249,359,1

Fig. 3.1.5.9. 24-h Forecast Of 3 hr Accumulate Rain By (a), (c), (e) MM5 And (b), (d), (f) WRF At 0000 UTC 25 Jul 2003. Horizontal Resolutions Are (a), (b) 18 km And (c), (d), (e), (f) 9 km. The Physics Option Of (a), (b), (c), (d) With Cumulus Parameterization And Microphysics, And (e), (f) With Only Microphysics=250,360,1

Fig. 3.1.5.10. Observed 3-hr Accumulated Precipitation (Left) At The Same Time As Fig. 3.1.5.9 And Enhanced Infrared Satellite Image (Right) At 2230 UTC 24 Jul 2003=252,362,1

Fig. 3.1.5.11. The Location Of Observed Precipitation With (a) AWS And The Grid Points Of Simulated Precipitation With (b) MM5 And (c) WRF In 18 km Resolution=252,362,1

Fig. 3.1.5.12. Threat Score Of Simulated 1-hr Accumulated Rain In (a), (b) And (c) For WRF And (d), (e) And (f) For MM5 With 18 km Resolution. The Right Upper Annotations Are Date Of Cases, Respectively=254,364,1

Fig. 3.1.5.13. Threat Score Of Simulated 1hr Accumulate Rain In (a), (b) And (c) For WRF And (d), (e) And (f) For MM5 With 9 km Resolution Of Cumulus Parameterization And Micro Physics. The Right Upper Annotations Are Date Of Cases, Respectively=255,365,1

Fig. 3.1.5.14. Threat Score Of Simulated 1hr Accumulate Rain In (a), (b), (c) WRF And (d), (e), (f) MM5 With 9 km Resolution Of Micro Physics. The Right Upper Annotations Are Dates Of Case, Respectively=256,366,1

Fig. 3.1.5.15. 3-hr Accumulated Rain By (a) MM5 And (b) WRF At 0600 UTC 9 Jul 2003. Cross Sections Of Potential Temperature (Cross Sections Indicate The Red Lines In (a) And (b)) Are (c) MM5 And (d) WRF=258,368,1

Fig. 3.1.5.16. Same As Fig. 3.1.5.15 Except Without Cumulus Parameterization=259,369,1

Fig. 3.1.5.17. Simulated 3-hr Accumulated Rainfall With (a) 18 km, (b) 9 km (Cumulus Parameterization And Microphysics), (c) 9 km (Microphysics) By WRF And (d) AWS Observation At 2100 UTC 9 Jul 2003=260,370,1

Fig. 3.1.5.18. The Frequency Of 3-hr Accumulated Rain.=262,372,1

Fig. 3.1.5.19. (a) Topography Of Studied Domain From USGS 30" Data And (b) More Detailed Map From Sub-Box In (a). The Cross Section A, B, C And D Are For One-Dimensional Spectral Analysis=266,376,1

Fig. 3.1.5.20. Terrain Height Variance Spectra For Cross Sections In Fig. 3.1.5.19. One-Dimensional Power Spectra Of A, B, C And D Cross Section In Fig. 3.1.5.19 Correspond To (a), (b), (c) And (d)=268,378,1

Fig. 3.1.5.21. The Resolved Terrain Variance Spectra (Percentages) For Model Resolution (Left Column) And The Ratios Of Subgrid-Scale Terrain Height Variance To Model-Resolved Terrain Height Variance (Right Column) As Cross Sections Of Fig. 3.1.5.19 (a)=270,380,1

Fig. 3.1.5.22. Contours Of Log Spectral Power (㎡㎢) Contained In The Terrain Height Of Korean Peninsula (Fig. 3.1.5.19 (a)), (a) Wavenumbers Between 0 And 0.5 ㎞-²(b) A Detail For Wavenumbers Between 0 And 0.12 ㎞-²(이미지 참조)=271,381,1

Fig. 3.1.5.23. Terrain Height Variance Spectra For AA And BB Cross Section In Fig. 3.1.5.22 (a)=272,382,1

Fig. 3.1.5.24. Synoptic Surface Pressure Map From KMA At (a) 00 UTC And (b) 12 UTC 15 July 2004=274,384,1

Fig. 3.1.5.25. Simulated Wind Stream Lines At Lowest Model Layer For 2000 UTC 14 July 2004.=275,385,1

Fig. 3.1.5.26. Same As Fig. 3.1.5.25 But At 00 UTC 25 July 2004=276,386,1

Fig. 3.1.5.27. Root Mean Square Vector Errors And Unbiased Root Mean Square Vector Errors For Model Simulation With Different Resolution=277,387,1

Fig. 3.1.5.28. Schematic Diagram Of Coupled WRF-WW3 Model (CWW) Using Multi-Component-Single-Executable (MCSE) Method=283,393,1

Fig. 3.1.5.29. Schematic Diagram Of Coupled WRF-TIDE Model (CWT) Using Multi-Component-Single-Executable (MCSE)=286,396,1

Fig. 3.1.5.30. Simulation Domain Used For CWW (Coupled WRF-WW3 Model) And CWT (Coupled WRF-TIDE Model). The Horizontal Resolutions Of WRF, WW3, And Tide Are 18 km, 1/6 And 1/12 Degrees, Respectively=289,399,1

Fig. 3.1.5.31. Surface Analysis Chart At 1200 UTC 14 July 2004. A, B, And C Indicate The Region Of Changma Front, Northh-Pacific High, And Tyhoon (TS 0409 KOMPASU), Respectively=290,400,1

Fig. 3.1.5.32. Coupled Simulation Of Chamock Parameter At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=290,400,1

Fig. 3.1.5.33. Sensible Heat Flux (Wm-2) Of Coupled Simulation (CWW) At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004. Negative Heat Flux Is Represented By Dotted Contour Line=291,401,1

Fig. 3.1.5.34. Latent Heat Flux (Wm-2) And 10 m Wind Vector Of Coupled Simulation (CWW) At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=293,403,1

Fig. 3.1.5.35. The Stream Line Of Surface Wind Difference Between CWW And N032 At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=293,403,1

Fig. 3.1.5.36. Same As In Fig. 3.1.5.35 Except For N018=294,404,1

Fig. 3.1.5.37. The Difference Of Latent Heat Flux (Wm-2) Between CWW And N032 At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=295,405,1

Fig. 3.1.5.38. Same As In Fig. 3.1.5.37 Except N018=295,405,1

Fig. 3.1.5.39. Comparisons Of Roughness Length (m) Of (a) CWW And N032 And (b) CWW And N018 At 1800 UTC 14 July 2004=297,407,1

Fig. 3.1.5.40. Wind Speed Differences Against Roughness Length For CWW - N032 And CWW - N018. CWW - N032 (a) At 1800 UTC 14 July And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004. CWW - N018 (c) At 1800 UTC 14 July And (d) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=298,408,1

Fig. 3.1.5.41. Same As In Fig. 3.1.5.40 Except Latent Heat Flux Differences=299,409,1

Fig. 3.1.5.42. Tide Height Simulated By Tide Model (TM) At 1400 UTC b) 1500 UTC, c) 1600 UTC And d) 1700 UTC 14 July 2004=301,411,1

Fig. 3.1.5.43. The Stream Line Of Surface Wind Difference Between CWT And N018 At (a) 1400 UTC, (b) 15000 UTC, (c) 1600 UTC, And 1700 UTC 14 July 2004=302,412,1

Fig. 3.1.6.1. WRF Model Domain And Rainfall Comparison Domain=307,417,1

Fig. 3.1.6.2. Time-Longitude Diagram For 20 June - 20 July 2003 Using 1-hour Accumulated Rainfall (mm) Averaged Meridionally Between 34˚ And 38˚N=308,418,1

Fig. 3.1.6.3. Time-Longitude Diagram For 20 June - 20 July 2003 Using 1-Day Accumulated Rainfall (mm) Averaged Meridionally Between 24.5˚ And 45.5˚N=309,419,1

Fig. 3.1.6.4. Time-Longitude Rainfall Frequency Diagram For 20 June - 20 July 2003 Using 1-hour Accumulated Data Averaged Meridionally Between 34˚And 38˚N=310,420,1

Fig. 3.1.6.5. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.2 But For A Time-Latitude Diagram. Rainfall Is Averaged From 126˚ to 130˚E=313,423,1

Fig. 3.1.6.6. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.3 But For A Time-Latitude Diagram. Rainfall Is Averaged From 115.5˚ To 142.5˚E=314,424,1

Fig. 3.1.6.7. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.4 But For A Time-Latitude Rainfall Frequency Diagram=314,424,1

Fig. 3.1.6.8. Time-Longitude Diagram For 2-3 July 2003 Using 1-hour Accumulated Rainfall Averaged Meridionally Between 34˚ And 38˚N=315,425,1

Fig. 3.1.6.9. Moisture Fluxes From (a) NCEP Reanalysis Data And (b) WRF Model For 06Z 2 - 06Z 3 July 2003=316,426,1

Fig. 3.1.6.10. The Flowchart Of WRF Ver. 2.0=319,429,1

Fig. 3.1.6.11. Model Domain For Domain 1 (18km) And Domain 2 (6km)=323,433,1

Fig. 3.1.6.12. Illustration Of Microphysics Processes=323,433,1

Fig. 3.1.6.13. Illustration Of Cumulus Processes=324,434,1

Fig. 3.1.6.14. Daily Precipitation (mm/24hours) During Experiment Period=326,436,1

Fig. 3.1.6.15. Six-Hour Surface Weather Charts (Upper), GOES Enhanced IR Imageries (Middle), And Radar Imageries (Lower) From 0000 To 1800 UTC 20 June 2004=327,437,1

Fig. 3.1.6.16. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.15 Except For 0000 To 1800 UTC 20 June 2004=327,437,1

Fig. 3.1.6.17. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.15 Except For 0000 To 1800 UTC 24 June 2004=328,438,1

Fig. 3.1.6.18. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.15 Except For 0000 To 1800 UTC 5 June 2003=328,438,1

Fig. 3.1.6.19. Equivalent Potential Temperature With Horizontal Wind Vector (Left Column) And Column Integrated Total Hydrometeor (mm) With Mean Surface Level Pressure At (a) 0600 UTC 5 March 2004, (b) 0600 UTC 20 June 2004, (c) 0600 UTC 24 June 2004, (d) 0000 UTC 7 August 2003=330,440,1

Fig. 3.1.6.20. [Left] Cloud Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Circulation Vector And [Right] Rain Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Snow Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Graupel Mixing Ratio (Shaded), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn) In (a) WSM5, (c) WSM3 At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=331,441,1

Fig. 3.1.6.21. [Left] Cloud Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Circulation Vector And [Right] Rain Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Snow Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Graupel Mixing Ratio (Shaded), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn) In (a) WSM6, (b) Lin_et_al, (c) Ferrier (New Eta) At 20 June 0600UTC (12 Fcst)=333,443,1

Fig. 3.1.6.22. 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation Of Cumulus Part [Left], Explicit Part [Middle], Sum Of Cumulus And Explicit Part In (a) WSM6, (b) Lin_et_al, (c) Ferrier (New Eta) At 20 June 0000 UTC (06 Fcst)=334,444,1

Fig. 3.1.6.23. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.22 Except For 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=335,445,1

Fig. 3.1.6.24. [Left] Cloud Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Circulation Vector And [Right] Rain Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Snow Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Graupel Mixing Ratio (Shaded), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn) In (a) WSM6, (b) Lin_et_al, (c) Ferrier (New Eta) At 5 March 0600UTC (186 Fcst)=336,446,1

Fig. 3.1.6.25. 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation Of Cumulus Part [Left], Explicit Part [Middle], Sum Of Cumulus And Explicit Part In (a) WSM6, (b) Lin_Et_Al, (c) Ferrier (New Eta) At 5 March 0600 UTC (18 Fcst)=337,447,1

Fig. 3.1.6.26. [From Left] 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation Of Cumulus Part, Explicit Part, Sum Of Cumulus And Explicit Part And CAPE In (a) Kain-Fritsch, (b) Grell-Devenyi Ensemble, (c) Betts-Miller-Janjic With WSM6 At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=338,448,1

Fig. 3.1.6.27. [Left] CAPE And [Right] 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation In (a) Kain-Fritsch, (b) No Cumulus Parameterization With WSM6 At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=339,449,1

Fig. 3.1.6.28. (a) Cloud Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio (Dashed), (b) Rain Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Snow Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Graupel Mixing Ratio (Shaded), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn), (c) Equivalent Potential Temperature And Circulation Vector, (d) 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation At [Left] 5 March 0600 UTC (18 Fcst), [Right] 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=340,450,1

Fig. 3.1.6.29. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.28 Except For (a) 18km Domain With Kain-Fritsch, (b) 18km Domain Without Cumulus Parameterization, (c) 6km Domain With Kain-Fritsch, (d) 6km Domain Without Cumulus Parameterization At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=341,451,1

Fig. 3.1.6.30. 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation In (a), (c) And Cloud Water Mixing Ratio(Shaded), Divergence (Solid And Dashed), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn) In (d), (e) And Radar-Echo Of Mt. Gwangduk In (c). (a), (d) With Kain-Fritsch, (c), (e) With Cumulus Parameterization With WSM6 At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=342,452,1

Fig. 3.1.6.31. (a) Surface Weather Chart, (b) GEOS Enhanced IR Images, (c) Distribution Of Lightening For 1 Hours, And (d) 6-hour Accumulated Rainfall By AWS From 1800 UTC 4 To 1800 UTC 5 March 2004=346,456,1

Fig. 3.1.6.32. (a) Cloud Water Mixing Ratio(Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio(Dashed), (b) Equivalent Potential Temperature And Circulation Vector, (c) CAPE, (d) CIN At 0600 UTC 5 March 2004=348,458,1

Fig. 3.1.6.33. (a) CAPE, (b) CIN, (c) SREH, (d) 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation At 0600 UTC 5 March 2004=348,458,1

Fig. 3.1.6.34. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.31 Except For The Period From 0000 UTC 20 To 0000 UTC 21 June 2004=350,460,1

Fig. 3.1.6.35. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.32 Except For 0600 UTC 20 June 2004=351,461,1

Fig. 3.1.6.36. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.33 Except For 0600 UTC 20 June 2004=351,461,1

Fig. 3.1.6.37. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.31 Except For The Period From 0000 UTC 24 To 0000 UTC 25 June 2004=353,463,1

Fig. 3.1.6.38. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.32 Except For 0600 UTC 24 June 2004=354,464,1

Fig. 3.1.6.39. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.33 Except For 0600 UTC 24 June 2004=354,464,1

Fig. 3.1.6.40. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.31 Except For The Period From 0600 UTC 5 To 0600 UTC 6 August 2003=355,465,1

Fig. 3.1.6.41. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.32 Except For 0000 UTC 6 August 2003=356,466,1

Fig. 3.1.6.42. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.33 Except For 0000 UTC 6 August 2003=356,466,1

Fig. 3.1.7.1. Organization Of MPP MM5=360,470,1

Fig. 3.1.7.2. Indices Of Parallel Programs=361,471,1

Fig. 3.1.7.3. Data Communication Pattern=371,481,1

Fig. 3.1.7.4. Speedup Of Horizontal Diffusion MM5=375,485,1

Fig. 3.1.7.5. The Structure Of Nested Domains Of WRF=376,486,1

Fig. 3.1.7.6. Illustration Of Nested Domains=377,487,1

Fig. 3.1.7.7. Improved Computation Of Nested Domains=378,488,1

Fig. 3.1.7.8. A Sender And A Receiver Using TCP=381,491,1

Fig. 3.1.7.9. Data Allocation In The Parallel WRF Program=389,499,1

Fig. 3.1.7.10. Execution Of Two Different WRF Models=393,503,1

Fig. 3.1.7.11. Wind Difference Of A WRF Model After Receiving Boundary Data=394,504,2

Fig. 3.1.7.12. Mobil Agents Framework=396,506,1

Fig. 3.1.7.13. Aglet Transfer=397,507,1

Fig. 3.1.7.14. Relationship Between Aglet And Proxy=397,507,1

Fig. 3.1.7.15. Parallel Execution Of Aglets=398,508,1

Fig. 3.1.7.16. HelloNative.java=400,510,1

Fig. 3.1.7.17. Example: HelloNative.c=401,511,1

Fig. 3.1.7.18. A Comparison Of The Sequential And Concurrent Generation Of Random Numbers=402,512,1

Fig. 3.1.7.19. Collaboration Diagram For Host And Client=402,512,1

Fig. 3.1.7.20. Host Aglet=403,513,1

Fig. 3.1.7.21. Client Aglet=404,514,1

Fig. 3.1.7.22. To Compute π=404,514,1

Fig. 3.1.7.23. Code To Compute π=405,515,1

Fig. 3.1.7.24. To Compute I＝∫¹0x²dx(이미지 참조)=405,515,1

Fig. 3.1.7.25. Code To Compute ∫¹0x²dx(이미지 참조)=405,515,1

Fig. 3.1.7.26. A Comparison Of The π Calculation Time=406,516,1

Fig. 3.1.7.27. A Comparison Of The ∫¹0x²dx Calculation Time(이미지 참조)=407,517,1

Fig. 3.1.7.28. A Comparison Of The π Calculation Time Of Java & C=407,517,1

Fig. 3.1.7.29. A Comparison Of The ∫¹0x²dx Calculation Time Of Java & C(이미지 참조)=408,518,1

Fig. 3.2.1.1. The Visualization Of AWS Observation (a) Temperature, (b) Hourly Precipitation And (c) Wind Vector At 1300 UTC 5 August 2002=413,523,1

Fig. 3.2.1.2. The Time Series Of Vertical Wind Profile From Wind Profile From Wind Profiler Observation At 18 July 2003=414,524,1

Fig. 3.2.1.3. DMSP F14 OLS (a) Visible Image And (b) Infrared Image At 23:22 UTC 6 August 2002=415,525,1

Fig. 3.2.1.4. The Snap Shot Of WDSS-II=416,526,1

Fig. 3.2.1.5. The Visualization Of WSR-88D Radar Reflectivity With Using WDSS-II=417,527,1

Fig. 3.2.1.6. The Database Of (a) GMS Satellite Image, (b) KMA Radar Image And (c) Air Force Radar Image=419,529,1

Fig. 3.2.1.7. GMS Infrared Images (a) Before And (b) After Removing The Coastal Lines=420,530,1

Fig. 3.2.1.8. The Time Series Of (a) GMS Infrared Image And (b) Radar Image At The Latitude 126.5˚E=421,531,1

Fig. 3.2.1.9. Daily Rainfall Distribution During 18 Days From 31 July To 17 August 1998=422,532,1

Fig. 3.2.1.10. The Areas To Average The DMSP Infrared Data And The GMS Infrared Image=423,533,1

Fig. 3.2.1.11. Comparison DMSP Infrared Data And GMS Infrared Image Data=423,533,1

Fig. 3.2.1.12. Schematic Depiction Of VIL Product In The TDWR=428,538,1

Fig. 3.2.1.13. Disposition Of TDWR And LLWAS At Incheon International Airport=429,539,1

Fig. 3.2.1.14. Scan Schedule Of TDWR In (a) Monitor Mode And (b) Hazard Mode=431,541,1

Fig. 3.2.1.15. The Surface Weather Chart At 0300 LST 7 August 2002=434,544,1

Fig. 3.2.1.16. Enhanced GMS Infrared Image At 0300 LST 7 August 2002. A Rainband Was Extended From The Yellow Sea To The East Sea In The Direction Of Southwest To Northwest Direction=434,544,1

Fig. 3.2.1.17. Atmospheric Sounding Chart At 0300 LST 7 August 2002 On Osan=435,545,1

Fig. 3.2.1.18. Wind Profiles At 0300 LST 6 And 7 August 2002=435,545,1

Fig. 3.2.1.19. Movement Of Convective Precipitation Band Shown By VIL (a) At 0209 LST (b) 0341 LST, (c) VIL Difference Between 0209 LST And 0341 LST, And (d) VIL Data At 0510 LST On 7 August 2002=437,547,1

Fig. 3.2.1.20. (a) CAPPI Image At 1km Height, (b) Cross-Section Image Through A-A', (c) Cross-Section Image Through B-B' At 0550 LST On 7 August 2002=439,549,1

Fig. 3.2.1.21. Maps Of VIL And VIL Difference At Two Different Times On August 2002. (a) VIL (0~12km, 0209 LST) (b) VIL (0~6km, 0209 LST) (c) VIL (0~12km, 050 LST) (d) VIL (0~6km, 0550 LST) (e) Difference Of VIL (0~12km) Between 0209 And 0550 LST (f) Difference Of VIL (0~6km) Between 0209 And 0550 LST=440,550,1

Fig. 3.2.1.22. Surface Weather Map At (a) 0900 LST, (b) 1500 LST On 24 August 2003=442,552,1

Fig. 3.2.1.23. Weather Maps Of (a) 850 hPa, (b) 200 hPa For 0900 LST 24 August 2003=443,553,1

Fig. 3.2.1.24. Enhanced GMS Infrared Images At (A) 0900 LST, (b) 1500 LST 24 August 2003=444,554,1

Fig. 3.2.1.25. Atmospheric Soundings At Osan Site For (a) 0300 LST 24 August 2003. (b) 0900 LST And (c) 1500 LST 24 August 2003=447,557,1

Fig. 3.2.1.26. Time Sequence Of PPIs Of Radar Reflectivity From Two Elevation=448,558,1

Fig. 3.2.1.27. Time Sequence Of PPis Of Radar Reflectivity From Two Elevation At Four Times=450,560,1

Fig. 3.2.1.28. Time Sequence Of PPIs Of Radar Reflectivity From Two Elevation At Four Times=452,562,1

Fig. 3.2.1.29. PPIs Of Radar Velocity At Four Times=453,563,1

Fig. 3.2.1.30. Enlarged Image Inside Of The Rectangle In Fig. 3.2.1.29(a)=455,565,1

Fig. 3.2.1.31. PPI Of Radar Reflectivity Factor At 1045 LST. Rectangle Of Red Line Present Cross-Section Area=455,565,1

Fig. 3.2.1.32. Vertical Cross Section Of Radar Reflectivity Factor At (a) 1006 LST (b) 1019 LST (c) 1032 LST (d) 1045 LST (e) 1100 LST (f) 1113 LST On 24 August 2002=456,566,1

Fig. 3.2.1.33. VIL From The Surface Up To The Altitude Of 10 km At (a) 1014 LST (b) 1040 LST (c) 1054 LST (d) 1108 LST On 24 August 2002=458,568,1

Fig. 3.2.1.34. Topographical Distribution And Radar Coverage Of WSR-88D Doppler Radar At RKJK And RKSG With 50 Km Intervals, Respectively=461,571,1

Fig. 3.2.1.35. Distribution Of 48-hour And 12-hour Accumulated Precipitation For Heavy Rainfall Cases (a) Case 1: Form 26 To 27 July, 1996, (b) Case 2:From 24~26 July, 2003 (c) From 5 To 6 August 2003, (d) From 17 To 18 September 2003, (e) From 8 To 10 July 2003=466,576,2

Fig. 3.2.1.36. GOES-9 Visible Imagery And JMH Charts Of Surface, 700 hPa, 500 hPa, And 200 hPa At 00 UTC 9 July 2003=470,580,1

Fig. 3.2.1.37. Same As In Fig. 3.2.1.36 Except For At 00 UTC 6 August 2003=471,581,1

Fig. 3.2.1.38. Skew-T Log-P Chart At 00 UTC 25 July 2003 (a) And 00 UTC 09 July 2003 (b), Respectively=474,584,1

Fig. 3.2.1.39. Time-Height Cross-Section Of Equivalent Potential Temperature, Relative Humidity=475,585,1

Fig. 3.2.1.40. Same As In Fig. 3.2.1.39 Except For Distance-Height Cross-Section=476,586,1

Fig. 3.2.1.41. Satellite Imagery (GMS-5 For (a), GEOS-9 For (b)-(c)) And Corresponding Reflectivity Of WSR-88D Doppler Radar Each From 1130 UTC 26 To 0230 UTC 27 July 1996 (a), From 0900 UTC To 12 UTC 24 August 2003 (b), And 2300 UTC 8 To 0200 UTC 9 July 2003 (c), Respectively=478,588,3

Fig. 3.2.1.42. The Meso-Analysis Chart Using Surface Observation Data At (a) 0600 UTC And (b) 0900 UTC 26 July 1996. The Thick Solid Lines Denote Pressure (hPa) And Dotted Lines Temperature (℃)=484,594,1

Fig. 3.2.1.43. Surface Temperature And Wind Fields At (a) 0030 Utc 25 July 2003 And (b) 0900 UTC 24 August 2003 From Automated Weather System In KMA. Small Box At Left Bottom Shows Reflectivity Of Corresponding Time=485,595,2

Fig. 3.2.1.44. The Composite Reflectivity (CR) (Left Panels), Storm-Relative Velocity (SR) (Middle Panels), And Base Velocity (BV) (Right Panels) From (a) 1000UTC Through (e) 1200UTC 26 July 1996 With 30-Minute Intervals, Respectively. The Green Colors Denote Inbound (Toward Radar) While The Red Colors Refer To Outboung (Away From The Radar) And The Yellow Circles In Thick Dashed Lines In (d) And (e) Denote Mesocyclone Activities=489,599,1

Fig. 3.2.1.45. The Cross-Section Of Reflectivity And Base Velocity Perpendicular To MCS Movement (North-South) Following The Strongest Storm In MCS From 1010UTC To 1230UTC With 10-Minute Intervals, Respectively, (Upper Panel) And The Cross-Section Of (a) Reflectivity, (b) Base Velocity, And (c) Storm-Relative Velocity At 1150UTC 26 Along The Line E-F Shwn In Fig. 3.2.1.43 e=490,600,1

Fig. 3.2.1.46. Composite Reflectivity Of Greater Than 40 dBZ From 1800 UTC 26 To 0300 UTC With 1-hour Intervals. The Dotted Lines Refer Representto A Small Clusters And The Solid Lines Mean Represent A Large Clusters. The Numbers In The Clusters Denote Small Convective Cells=491,601,1

Fig. 3.2.1.47. Reflectivity Of WSR-88D From 0800 UTC To 2100 UTC 24 August 2003 And 1800 UTC 17 To 0700 UTC 18 September 2003=493,603,2

Fig. 3.2.1.48. The Boundaries Of Convective Storm Boundaries (a) From 1000 UTC To 1500 UTC 26 For The First MCS, And (b) From 1801UTC 26 To 0232UTC 27 July For The Second MCS. The Open Arrows With Light Shading Show The Temporal Change Of Boundaries. The Thick Arrows At The Right Sides Denote The Mean Movement Of Individual Cells (CC), The Movement Of Storm System (CS), The Propagation Vectors (PS), And The Environmental Wind Speed Resulted From Osan Rawindsonde Data (We)=496,606,1

Fig. 3.2.2.1. Satellite Infrared Images From 0600 UTC To 1800 UTC 13 October 1997=501,611,1

Fig. 3.2.2.2. Augmented Satellite Images For 1200 UTC (Left Panel) And 1800 UTC (Right Panel) 13 October 1997=501,611,1

Fig. 3.2.2.3. The Surface Analysis At 0000 UTC (Upper Panel), 0600 UTC (Middle Panel), And 1200 UTC (Lowr Panel) On 13 October 1997=502,612,1

Fig. 3.2.2.4. The 920 hPa Analysis At 0000 UTC 13 October 1997=503,613,1

Fig. 3.2.2.5. The NCEP Analysis Of Moisture Flux (Upper Panel) And Equivalent Potential Temperature (Lower Panel) At 850 hPa At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=504,614,1

Fig. 3.2.2.6. The RDAPS Analysis Of 750 hPa Vertical p-Velocity At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=504,614,1

Fig. 3.2.2.7. The Saturation Deficit Fields For 700 hPa At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=506,616,1

Fig. 3.2.2.8. K-Index (Upper Panel) And Showalter Index (Lower Panel) At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=507,617,1

Fig. 3.2.2.9. The 500 hPa Analysis At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997. Red Circle Indicates Wind At Osan=508,618,1

Fig. 3.2.2.10. The 500 hPa Relative Vorticity=509,619,1

Fig. 3.2.2.11. The 200 hPa Divergence And Isotach=509,619,1

Fig. 3.2.2.12. MM5 Analysis Of The 200 hPa Potential Vorticity And Isotach At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=509,619,1

Fig. 3.2.2.13. Relative Humidity Observed From The AWS Network From 0900 To 2400 LST 13 October 1997=510,620,1

Fig. 3.2.2.14. Wind Vector Observed From The AWS Network From 0600 LST To 2200 LST On 13 October 1997=511,621,1

Fig. 3.2.2.15. Vertical Soundings At Osan At 0000 UTC (Upper Panel) And 1200 UTC (Lower Panel) On 13 October 1997=513,623,1

Fig. 3.2.2.16. Vertical Sounding Of Osan At 0600 UTC 13 October 1997 (Upper Panel) And A Typical Sounding Resulting In A Supercell Storm (Lower Panel)=514,624,1

Fig. 3.2.2.17. Storm Relative Helicity (SREH) At 3 km Height At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel)=515,625,1

Fig. 3.2.2.18. Procedures For Model Runs=516,626,1

Fig. 3.2.2.19. Nested Domain Used In This Study With Horizontal Grid Space Of 54 km (D0), 18 km (D1), 6 km (D3), And 2 km (D4)=517,627,1

Fig. 3.2.2.20. Forecast Fields Of Mixing Ratios Of (a) Cloud Ice And (b) Graupel At t ＝ 34 hr (1000 UTC 13 October 1997) For A 6 km Grid Domain With EXP1=518,628,1

Fig. 3.2.2.21. Forecast Fields Of Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio At a) t ＝ 35 hr (1100 UTC 13 October 1997) And b) t ＝ 36 hr (1200 UTC 13 October 1997) For A 6 km Grid Domain With EXP1=519,629,1

Fig. 3.2.2.22. Same As In Fig.3.2.2.20 But At t ＝ 22 hr (1000 UTC 13 October 1997) With EXP2=520,630,1

Fig. 3.2.2.23. Same As In Fig.3.2.2.20 But For A 2 km Grid Domain=521,631,1

Fig. 3.2.2.24. Same As In Fig.3.2.2.22 But For A 2 km Grid Domain=521,631,1

Fig. 3.2.2.25. Vertical Cross Sections Of Forecasted Fields Of Wind Vectors And Mixing Ratios Of Cloud Water (Contour) And Rainwater (Color Filled) At 1000 UTC 13 October 1997 For a) EXP1 And b) EXP2=522,632,1

Fig. 3.2.2.26. Domain Maximum Vertical Velocity For EXP2=523,633,1

Fig. 3.2.2.27. Terrain Elevation Contour Lines Around Jiri Mountain Using Ministry Of Environment DEM(Digital Elevation Model) 3 Seconds Data With 100 m Interval=528,638,1

Fig. 3.2.2.28. Model Terrain Elevation For L-Topo(a) And H-Topo(b) For The 1 km Domain Run With 200 m Interval=529,639,1

Fig. 3.2.2.29. Hour Accumulated Rainfall Amount In 1 km Domain Run. a) Is For L-Topo And b) Is For H-Topo=530,640,1

Fig. 3.2.2.30 Difference Of Terrain Height And Rainfall Amount Between L-Topo And H-Topo. Contour Lines Represent The Difference Of Terrain Height With 200 M Interval. Shading Represent Difference Of Rainfall Amounts [mm]=531,641,1

Fig. 3.2.2.31. Rain Water Mixing Ratio And Vertical Velocities In An Southwest-Northeast Cross Section Passing The Peak Of Jiri Mountain At 18 Utc July 1998 For L-Topo(a), H-Topo(b). Shading Represent Rain Water Mixing Ratio Using g/kg Units And The Contour Line Represent The Vertical Velocities With 30 cm/s Interval. Circulation Wind Vector Also Is Superimposed=532,642,1

Fig. 3.2.2.32. Comparison Of The 12 Hour Accumulated Rainfall Amounts Of The Observed Aws Data, L-Topo, And H-Topo At SanChong And KuRae From 15 LST 31 July To 03 LST 1 August 1998=533,643,1

Fig. 3.2.2.33. Observed Distribution Of 18 Hour Accumulated Rainfall On July, 16-17 1992=537,647,1

Fig. 3.2.2.34. Simulated 18 Hour Accumulated Rainfall Amount For CNTL=537,647,1

Fig. 3.2.2.35. Simulated 18 Hour Accumulated Rainfall Amount For NOTOPO=537,647,1

Fig. 3.2.2.36. Accumulated Precipitation From 00 UTC 30 August To 00 UTC 1 September 2002=539,649,1

Fig. 3.2.2.37. The Same As Fig. 3.2.2.36 Except For Simulated Precipitation With WRF Model=539,649,1

Fig. 3.2.2.38. Sea Level Pressure (Black), Temperature(Red) And Wind Field(Barb) At 21 UTC 30 August 2002=540,650,1

Fig. 3.2.2.39. Cross Section Of Temperature And Relative Humidity=541,651,1

Fig. 3.2.2.40. 3-hour Accumulated Precipitation At 06 UTC 31 August 2002 Without Topo=541,651,1

Fig. 3.2.2.41. The Model Domain And Topography=546,656,1

Fig. 3.2.2.42. Surface Weather Charts From FNL Data At (a) 12UTC 13, (b) 00UTC 14, (c) 12UTC 14 And (d) Ooutc 15 Aug 2003=547,657,1

Fig. 3.2.2.43. 850hPa Weather Charts From FNL Data At (a) 12UTC 13, (b) 00UTC 14, (c) 12UTC 14 And (d) 00UTC 15 Aug 2003=547,657,1

Fig. 3.2.2.44. GMS Satellite Image At 14 UTC And 18UTC 14 July 2001And KMA Radar Image At 13 UTC And 18UTC 14 July 2001=548,658,1

Fig. 3.2.2.45. The 6Hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a) dm2 (b) dm3 At 18UTC 06 August 2003=550,660,1

Fig. 3.2.2.46. Same As 2.17 But For Simulated By WRFV2=550,660,1

Fig. 3.2.2.47. The 24hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a) 3km Domain And (b) 1km And Observation 00UTC 15 July 200=552,662,1

Fig. 3.2.2.48. Time Series Of 1h-Rainfall Amount=553,663,1

Fig. 3.2.2.49. The 1hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a) dm3 (b) dm4 (c) Observation At 14 UTC And (d),(e) And (f) Is Same As (a), (b) And (c) But For 18 UTC 14 July 2001=554,664,1

Fig. 3.2.2.50 The Cross-Section Of Reflectivity (a) dm3 (b) dm4 At 18 UTC 14 July 2001=554,664,1

Fig. 3.2.2.51. Radar Reflectivity Image At 14 UTC And 18 UTC 14 July 2001=555,665,1

Fig. 3.2.2.52. Low-Level Radar Reflectivity Patterns In Narrow Cold-Frontal Rainbands Approaching The Coast Of Washington State On (a) 14 November 1976, (b) 17 November 1976, (c) 21 November 1976, And (d) 8 December 19761. (From Hobbs And Biswas, 1979)=555,665,1

Fig. 3.2.2.53. Cross Section Of Relative Vorticity (Shading), Equivalent Potential Temperature (Red Line), Wind Vector (Arrow), Hydrometeors (Blue Line) (a) dm3, (b) dm4 At 14UTC And (c) dm3, And (d) dm4 At 18UTC 14 July 2001=557,667,1

Fig. 3.2.2.54. A Schematic Of How A Typical Vortex-Tube Changes Its Orientation By Interaction With A Convective Element (a) In The Initial Stage (b) At A Later Stage=557,667,1

Fig. 3.2.2.55. Cross Section Of Divergence(Red Line) And Convergence (Blue Dashed Line) Of (a) dm3 And (b) dm4 And Vertical Velocity (Upward: Red Line, Downward : Blue Dashed Line) Of (c) dm3 And (d) dm4 At 14UTC 14 July 2001=558,668,1

Fig. 3.2.2.56. Same As Fig. 3.2.2.55 But For At 18UTC 14 July 2001=559,669,1

Fig. 3.2.2.57. The Cross Section Of Base Velocity At 18UTC 14 July 2001=560,670,1

Fig. 3.2.2.58. Schematic Diagram Of Consecutive Convection Cell Responsible For Heavy Rainfall=560,670,1

Fig. 3.2.2.59. Phase Error Between The Forecasted Storm And The Observed Storm=564,674,1

Fig. 3.2.2.60. Flowchart For Determining Phase Error Field=568,678,1

Fig. 3.2.2.61. Forecast Update Cycle Combining Phase Error Correction And Analysis Steps=570,680,1

Fig. 3.2.2.62. Same As In Fig. 4. 3 But Described In Terms Of The ARPS System=571,681,1

Fig. 3.2.2.63. Two Options For Gradual Correction Of Phase Errors=574,684,1

Fig. 3.2.2.64. Horizontal Winds (Vectors) And Vertical Velocities (Contours) Of A Simulated Storm For a) Verification, b) Control Run, c) Single-Step Phase Correction, And d) Multi-Step Phase Correction. Modified From Brewster (2003a)=576,686,1

Fig. 3.2.2.65. Forecasted Fields Of Reflectivity And Wind Barbs For (a) Without Phase-Correction And (b) With Phase-Correction, And (c) Corresponding Radar Observations Valid At Forecast Time Of 2 hr 10 Min (2010 UTC)=579,689,1

Fig. 3.2.2.66. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 2 hr 40 Min (2040 UTC)=580,690,1

Fig. 3.2.2.67. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 3 hr 10 Min (2110 UTC)=581,691,1

Fig. 3.2.2.68. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 4 hr (2200 UTC)=582,692,1

Fig. 3.2.2.69. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 5 hr (2300 UTC)=583,693,1

Fig. 3.2.2.70. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 6 hr (0000 UTC)=584,694,1

Fig. 3.2.2.71. Model Domains (Grids),(a) Mother Domain With 30 km Resolution, And (b) Nested Domain With 10 km Resolution=595,705,1

Fig. 3.2.2.72. (a) Weather Chart Of Surface, (b) 1000-500hPa Thickness And 700hPa T-Td 00UTC 6 Aug. 2003, (c) Radar Image , (d) Skew-T Log-P Diagram Of Osan At 12UTC 6 Aug. 2003, (e) 12-Hour Accumulated Observed Rainfall (mm), And (f) Precipitation Intens=597,707,1

Fig. 3.2.2.73. Convection Triggered Grid Points, (a) CNTL, (b) DTRH, (c) TKET And (d) TAKF. + Means Deep Convection, And 0 Means Shallow Convection=601,711,1

Fig. 3.2.2.74. Box-And-Whiskers Plot Of Convective Source Layer (m)=602,712,1

Fig. 3.2.2.75. The Number Of Deep And Shallow Convection-Activated Grid Points Divided By The Number Of Total Convection-Activated Grid Points=602,712,1

Fig. 3.2.2.76. Cumulus Heating And Drying (K/hour) At A Point Where Convection Is Triggered In All Experiments=603,713,1

Fig. 3.2.2.77. Averaged Ice Mixing Ratio (g/kg) Time Series Over Main Precipitation Region For Domain 1=605,715,1

Fig. 3.2.2.78. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.75 Except For 24-Hour Running Of Model ForDomain 1=605,715,1

Fig. 3.2.2.79. 12-hour Accumulated Rainfall (mm) For Domain 1=606,716,1

Fig. 3.2.2.80. 9 Points Averaged Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) Around The Maximum Rainfall Point For Domain 1=607,717,1

Fig. 3.2.2.81. 12-hour Accumulated Rainfall (mm) For Domain 2.=611,721,1

Fig. 3.2.2.82. Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) Time Series At Maximum Rainfall Point From 06 To 18 UTC 6 Aug. 2003. Solid Lines Are For Simulated Total Rain, And Dotted Lines Are For Simulated Convective Rain For Domain 2=612,722,1

Fig. 3.2.2.83. Mixing Ratio Time Series At Maximum Rainfall Point From 06 To 18 UTC 6 Aug. 2003 For Domain 2=613,723,1

Fig. 3.2.2.84. Vertical Profile Of (a) Temperature Difference From CNTL (K) , (b) Relative Humidity (%), (c) Vertical Velocity (cm/s). Average From 13 To 18 UTC 6 Aug. 2003 For Domain 2=614,724,1

Fig. 3.2.2.85. Vertical Profile Of (a) Cumulus Tendencies (K/hour), (b) Q1 (Apparent Heat Source) And Q2 (Apparent Moisture Sink). Average From 13 To 18 UTC 6 Aug. 2003 For Domain 2=615,725,1

Fig. 3.2.2.86. Accumulated Rainfall Amount (mm) For 12 UTC 6-06 UTC 7 August 2002 Over South Korea=620,730,1

Fig. 3.2.2.87. Left And Right Panels Represent Surface ((a), (b)) And Upper ((c), (d) At 850 hPa, (e), (f) At 700 hPa, (g), (h) At 500 hPa, (i), (j) At 300 hPa) Weather Charts For 12 UTC 6 And 00 UTC 7 August 2002, Respectively=622,732,2

Fig. 3.2.2.88. GMS-5 Enhanced Infrared Images From 12 UTC To 23 UTC 6 August 2002=625,735,2

Fig. 3.2.2.89. The Composite Radar Images From 1230 UTC To 2330 UTC 6 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 15 dBZ=628,738,2

Fig. 3.2.2.90. The Distribution Of Aws 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) From 13 UTC 6 To 00 UTC 7 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=631,741,2

Fig. 3.2.2.91. The Four Nested Domains (D1, D2, D3, D4) For The Simulation=634,744,1

Fig. 3.2.2.92. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) For 30 km Domain (D1) In Control Experiment From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=636,746,1

Fig. 3.2.2.93. Same As Fig.3.2.2.92, Except For 10 km Domain (D2)=638,748,1

Fig. 3.2.2.94. Same As Fig.3.2.2.93, Except For 3.3 km Domain (D3)=640,750,1

Fig. 3.2.2.95. Same As Fig.3.2.2.92, Except For 1.1 km Domain (D4)=642,752,1

Fig. 3.2.2.96. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) Averaged Over D4 From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002, Obtained From 30 km Grid Spacing (Solid), 10 km Grid Spacing (Dotted), 3.3 km Grid Spacing (Dashed) And 1.1 km Grid Spacing (Dot-Dashed)=643,753,1

Fig. 3.2.2.97. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) At 15, 17, And 19 UTC 6 August 2002 For 30 km Grid Spacing (D1) Of Control ((a), (b), (c)), KF1 ((d), (e), (f)), BMJ1 ((g), (h), (i)) And GD1 ((j), (k), (l)) Experiment. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=646,756,1

Fig. 3.2.2.98. Same As Fig.3.2.2.97, Except For 10 km Grid Spacing (D2) Of KF1E2 ((a), (b), (c)), BMJ1E2 ((d), (e), (f)), And GD1E2 ((g), (h), (i)) Experiment=648,758,1

Fig. 3.2.2.99. Same As Fig.3.2.2.97, Except For KF12 ((a), (b), (c)), BMJ12 ((d), (e), (f)), And GD12 ((g), (h), (i)) Experiment=649,759,1

Fig. 3.2.2.100. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) At 15, 17, And 19 UTC 6 August 2002 For 3.3 km Grid Spacing (D3) Of KF1E23 ((a), (b), (c)), BMJ1E23 ((d), (e), (f)), And GD1E23 ((g), (h), (i)) Experiment. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=650,760,1

Fig. 3.2.2.101. Same As Fig.3.2.2.100, Except For KF12E3 ((a), (b), (c)), BMJ12E3 ((d), (e), (f)), And GD12E3 ((g), (h), (i)) Experiment=651,761,1

Fig. 3.2.2.102. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) For 3.3 km Domain (D3) Using WSM 3 Microphysics From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=654,764,1

Fig. 3.2.2.103. Same As Fig.3.2.2.102, Except For 1.1 km Domain (D4)=655,765,1

Fig. 3.2.2.104. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) For 3.3 km Domain (D3) Using WSM 6 Microphysics From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=657,767,1

Fig. 3.2.2.105. Same As Fig.3.2.2.104, Except For 1.1 km Domain (D4)=658,768,1

Fig. 3.2.2.106. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) Averaged Over 1.1.km Domain For (a) 3.3 km Grid Spacing And (b) 1.1 Grid Spacing From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002, Obtained From WSM 3 (Solid), WSM 5 (Dotted) And WSM 6 (Dashed) Microphysics Sch=660,770,1

Fig. 3.2.2.107. Vertical Distributions Of Precipitation Hydrometeor Mixing Ratio (Rain Water And Snow; Dotted) And Cloud Mixing Ratio (Cloud Water And Cloud Ice; Solid) For WSM 5 Microphysics Domain-Averaged Over 1.1 km Domain (D4) At (a) 13 UTC, (b) 16 UTC, (c) 19 UTC And (d) 21 UTC 6 August 2002=662,772,1

Fig. 3.2.2.108. Vertical Distributions Of Precipitation Hydrometeor Mixing Ratio (Rain Water; Dotted) And Cloud Mixing Ratio (Cloud Water; Solid) For WSM 3 Microphysics Domain-Averaged Over 1.1 km Domain (D4) At (a) 13 UTC, (b) 16 UTC, (c) 19 UTC And (d) 21 UTC 6 August 2002=663,773,1

Fig. 3.2.2.109. Vertical Distributions Of Precipitation Hydrometeor Mixing Ratio (Rain Water, Snow And Graupel; Dotted) And Cloud Mixing Ratio (Cloud Water And Cloud Ice; Solid) For WSM 6 Microphysics Domain-Averaged Over 1.1 km (D4) At (a) 13 UTC, (b) 16 UTC, (c) 19 UTC And (d) 21 UTC 6 August 2002=664,774,1

Fig. 3.2.2.110. Vertical Distributions Of (a) Precipitation Hydrometeor Mixing Ratio (Rain Water, Snow And Graupel) And (b) Cloud Mixing Ratio (Cloud Water And Cloud Ice) Domain-Averaged Over 1.1 km Domain (D4) From 12 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002=666,776,1

Fig. 3.2.2.111. The Best Track And Time Series Of The Minimum Surface Pressure (hPa) Of Typhoon Maemi (From KMA)=669,779,1

Fig. 3.2.2.112. The Best Track And Time Series Of The Minimum Surface Pressure (hPa) Of Typhoon Rusa (From KMA)=671,781,1

Fig. 3.2.2.113. The (a) Surface And (b) 850 hPa Weather Chart For 1200 UTC 31 Aug. 2002 (From KMA)=672,782,1

Fig. 3.2.2.114. The Nested Domains Of MM5 For (a) Domain 1 (54 km) And Domain 2 (18 km)=673,783,1

Fig. 3.2.2.115. The Flow Chart Of GFDL TC Bogussing Algorithm=675,785,1

Fig. 3.2.2.116. The 6-hourly Track Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Initial Fields (Red Line: EX-NO, Blue Line: EX-VO) With 6-hourly Observed Data (Black Line) Provided By RSMC Tokyo-Typhoon Center=678,788,1

Fig. 3.2.2.117. The Time Series Of The Intensity (Minimum Surface Pressure) Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Initial Fields With 6-hourly Observed Data=679,789,1

Fig. 3.2.2.118. The Predicted Sea Level Pressure Field And Surface Wind Vector (a) Before And (b) After Bogussing At Initial Model Time (1200 UTC 11 September 2003)=680,790,1

Fig. 3.2.2.119. The Predicted Vertical Cross Sections Of Equivalent Potential Temperature And Wind Vector Parallel To The Cross Section Along The Red Lines Shown In Fig.3.2.2. 5.8. (a) Before And (b) After Bogussing At Initial Model Time (1200 UTC 11 September 2003)=681,791,1

Fig. 3.2.2.120. The Time Series Of Minimum Surface Pressure (hPa) In Simulations Using Different Convective Parameterizations With 6-hourly Observed Data=683,793,1

Fig. 3.2.2.121. The 6-hourly Track Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different S Values (Red Line: -30 mb, Brown Line: -20 mb, Blue Line: -40 mb) With 6-Hourly Observed Data (Black Line) Provided By Rsmc Tokyo-Typhoon Center=687,797,1

Fig. 3.2.2.122. The Time Series Of The Intensity (Minimum Surface Pressure) Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Saturation Pressure Departure Values With 6-hourly Observed Data=687,797,1

Fig. 3.2.2.123. The 6-hourly Track Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different W Values (Red Line: 0.85, Blue Line: 0.90, Brown Line: W 0.95) With 6-Hourly Observed Data (Black Line) Provided By RSMC Tokyo-Typhoon Center=689,799,1

Fig. 3.2.2.124. The Time Series Of The Intensity (Minimum Surface Pressure) Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Stability Weight Values With 6-Hourly Observed Data=689,799,1

Fig. 3.2.2.125. The 6-hourly Track Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different τ Values (Red Line: 30 Min, Blue Line: 50 Min, Brown Line: 70 Min) With 6-hourly Observed Data (Black Line) Provided By RSMC Tokyo-Typhoon Center=691,801,1

Fig. 3.2.2.126. The Time Series Of The Intensity (Minimum Surface Pressure) Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Adjustment Time Scale Values With 6-Hourly Observed Data=691,801,1

Fig. 3.2.2.127. The Time Series Of The Calculated Vertical Wind Shear And The Typhoon Intensity For Rusa (2002)=694,804,1

Fig. 3.2.2.128. The Moisture Flux (MFLX) Convergence Fields Of Rusa At (a) 1200 UTC 29, (b) 0000 UTC 30, (c) 1200 UTC 30, (d) 0000 UTC 31, (e) 1200 UTC 31 Aug. 2002, And (f) 0000 UTC 1 Sep. 2002=695,805,1

Fig. 3.2.2.129. The 1-h Accumulated Precipitation Amount (mm) And Predicted (Blue Line) And Observed (Black Line) Track At (a) t ＝ 0 h, (b) t ＝ 6 h, (c) t ＝ 9 h, (d) t ＝ 12 h, t ＝ 15 h, And (a) t ＝ 18 h=697,807,1

Fig. 3.2.2.130. The Predicted Vertical Cross Sections Of Wind Vector And Equivalent Potential Temperature (Θe, In K) At (a) t ＝ 0 h, (b) t ＝ 6 h, (c) t ＝ 9 h, (d) t ＝ 12 h, (e) t ＝ 15 h, And (f) t ＝ 18 h(이미지 참조)=698,808,1

Fig. 3.2.2.131. The Predicted 850 hPa Rain Water Mixing Ratio Field At (a) 0300 LST, (b) 0500 LST, (c) 0700 LST, (d) 0900 LST, (e) 1100 LST, And (f) 1300 LST 31 Aug. 2002=700,810,1

Fig. 3.2.2.132. Same As Fig. 3.2.2.131. Except For At (a) 1500 LST, (B) 1700 LST, (c) 1900 LST, (d) 2100 LST, (e) 2300 LST 31 Aug. 2002, And (f) 01 LST 01 Sept. 2002=700,810,1

Fig. 3.2.2.133. The Predicted 850 hPa Wind Vectors And Wind Speed (Shaded) At (a) 0300 LST, (b) 0500 LST, (c) 0700 LST, (d) 0900 LST, (e) 1100 LST, And (f) 1300 LST 31 Aug. 2002=701,811,1

Fig. 3.2.2.134. Same As Fig.3.2.2.133. Except For At (a) 1500 LST, (b) 1700 LST, (c) 1900 LST, (D) 2100 LST, (e) 2300 LST 31 Aug. 2002, And (f) 0100 LST 01 Sept. 2002=701,811,1

Fig. 3.2.2.135. The 1-h Accumulated Precipitation Amount (mm) Using Bogussing With Tc Component At (a) 0300 LST, (b) 0400 LST, (c) 0500 LST, (d) 0600 LST, (e) 0700 LST, (f) 0800 LST, (g) 0900 LST, (h) 1000 LST, And (i) 1100 LST. 31 Aug. 2002=702,812,1

Fig. 3.2.2.136. Same As Fig.3.2.2.135. Except For Without TC Component=703,813,1

Fig. 3.2.2.137. The 1-h Accumulated Precipitation Amount (mm) Using Bogussing With TC Component At (a) 1500 LST, (b) 1600 LST, (c) 1700 LST, (d) 1800 LST, (e) 1900 LST, And (f) 2000 LST 31 Aug. 2002=704,814,1

Fig. 3.2.2.138. Same As Fig.3.2.2.137. Except For Without TC Component=704,814,1

Fig. 3.2.2.139. The 24-h Accumulated Precipitation Amount (mm) At (a) Jiri Mountain, (b) Taebaek Mountains=706,816,1

Fig. 3.2.2.140. The Time Series Of 1h-Accumulated Rainfall Amount (mm) At The Grid Point Where The Predicted Maximum 24h-Accumulated Rainfall Was Recorded=707,817,1

Fig. 3.2.2.141. Horizontal Distribution Of 24-hour Accumulated Rainfall (Upper) And Time Series Of 1-hour Accumulated Rainfall (Lower)=709,819,1

Fig. 3.2.2.142. 12-hour Interval GMS-5 IR Images From 0000 UTC 3 August To 0000 UTC 6 August 1998=710,820,1

Fig. 3.2.2.143. Best Track Of Typhoon Otto From JTWC=711,821,1

Fig. 3.2.2.144. Model Domains For Experiments=713,823,1

Fig. 3.2.2.145. Distribution Of Observation Points For BDA=713,823,1

Fig. 3.2.2.146. Initial Sea-Level Pressure Distributions Before BDA (Upper Left) And After BDA (Upper Right) And Wind Vectors At 850-hPa Level Before BDA (Lower Left) And After BDA (Lower Right). Thick Dots Designate The Observed Typhoon Locations=714,824,1

Fig. 3.2.2.147. Sea-Level Pressure And 24-hour Accumulated Rainfall Distributions Of Control (Upper) And BDA (Lower) Experiments=715,825,1

Fig. 3.2.2.148. Cross-Section Of Equivalent Potential Temperature (K), Rain Water (＞0.03 g/kg Shaded) And Cross-Sectional Wind Vectors Along The Line Given In Fig. 3.2.2.147=716,826,1

Fig. 3.2.2.149. 6-hourly Differences Of Moisture Flux At 850 hPa Level Between Two Experiments. Solid Red Contours Represent Positive Values And Blue Dashed Negative Values. Black Vectors In The Figures Represent Moisture Flux Vectors=717,827,2

Fig. 3.2.2.150. Differences Of Wind Vectors And Water Vapor Mixing Ratios Between The Two Experiments At 850 hPa Level=720,830,1

Fig. 3.2.2.151. (a) 24-hr Accumulated Rainfall Amount From 00UTC, 6 To 00UTC, 7 August 2003, And (b) 6-hr Accumulated Rainfall Amount From 12UTC To 18UTC, 6 Aug 2003=724,834,1

Fig. 3.2.2.152. (a) - (h) 1-hr Accumulated Rainfall Amount From 12UTC To 19UTC, 6 Aug 2003, Respectively=725,835,1

Fig. 3.2.2.153. Surface Weather Charts From JMA At (a) 06UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 18UTC 6 And (d) 00UTC 7 Aug 2003=727,837,1

Fig. 3.2.2.154. 850hPa Charts From AVN (a) 06UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 18UTC 6 And (d) 00UTC 7 Aug 2003=728,838,1

Fig. 3.2.2.155. 500hPa Charts From AVN (a) 06UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 18UTC 6 And (d) 00UTC 7 Aug 2003=729,839,1

Fig. 3.2.2.156. 200hPa Charts From AVN (a) 06UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 18UTC 6 And (d) 00UTC 7 Aug 2003=730,840,1

Fig. 3.2.2.157. Radar Reflectivity From KMA At (a) 13UTC, (b) 14UTC, (c) 15UTC 6, (d) 16UTC, (e) 17UTC And , (f) 18UTC 6 Aug 2003=732,842,1

Fig. 3.2.2.158. Vertical Cross Section Of Radar Reflectivity From WSR-88D(RKSG) Over cChorwon At (a) 11UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 13UTC, (d) 14UTC, (e) 15UTC And , (f) 16UTC 6 Aug 2003=733,843,1

Fig. 3.2.2.159. Horizontal Radial Velocity At (a) 12UTC, (b) 15UTC 6 Aug 2003=734,844,1

Fig. 3.2.2.160. The Diagram Precipitation And Severe Weather Scan Volume Pattern 21 Of WSR-88D. The Shaded Area Represents Radar Detectable Area And The Blank Area Represents Undetectable Area. The Numbers Of Right And Upper Axis Represent Elevation Angle=736,846,1

Fig. 3.2.2.161. The Horizontal Wind Distribution Calculated From Radial Velocity Of The Synthesized WSR-88Dat 5km Level=738,848,1

Fig. 3.2.2.162. (a) Rain Water Mixing Ratio Distribution On (a) 3km And, (b) 5.5km Level From Radar At 1200UTC 6 Aug 2003=738,848,1

Fig. 3.2.2.163. Schematic Of Sensitivity Test Design For Radar Data Assimilation=740,850,1

Fig. 3.2.2.164. Rainwater Mixing Ratio Distribution From CTL_10km On (a) 850hPa, (b) 700hPa, (c) 500hPa And From RNW_10km On (k) 850hPa, (e) 700hPa, (f) 500hPa At 12UTC 6 Aug 2003=741,851,1

Fig. 3.2.2.165. Horizontal Wind Distribution From CTL_3.3km On (a) 850hPa, (b) 700hPa, (c) 500hPa And From WND_3.3km On (d) 850hPa, (e) 700hPa, (f) 500hPa At 12UTC 6 Aug 2003=742,852,1

Fig. 3.2.2.166. The 6hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a), (b) CTL_10km, (c), (d) RNW_10km, (e), (f) WND_10km And (g), (h) RNW+WND_10km From 12UTC To 0700UTC 6 Aug 2003=744,854,2

Fig. 3.2.2.167. The 6hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a), (b) CTL_3.3km, (c), (d) RNW_3.3km, (e), (f) WND_3.3km And (g), (h) RNW+WND_3.3km From 12UTC To 0700UTC 6 Aug 2003=746,856,2

Fig. 3.2.2.168. The 1hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a), (b) CTL_3.3km, (c), (d) RNW_3.3km, (e), (f) WND_3.3km And (g), (h) RNW+WND_3.3km At 13UTC And 14UTC 6 Aug 2003=749,859,2

Fig. 3.2.2.169. Time Series Of 1-hour Accumulated Total Rain Water Amount Over (a) "A" Box And (b) "B" Box In The Left Upper Panel From 12UTC 6 To Ooutc 7 Aug 2003=752,862,1

Fig. 3.2.2.170. (a) Vertical Distribution Of Temperature Deviation Over Chorwon At 15UTC 6 Aug 2000. The Cross-Section Of Equivalent Potential Temperature(K) Difference Of (b), (c) RNW_3.3km - CTL_3.3km And (d), (e) WND_3.3km-CTL_3.3km At 13 And 15UTC 6 Aug 2003=754,864,1

Fig. 3.2.2.171. The Cross-Section Of Convergence/Divergence Field, Cross-Sectional Wind Component(m/s), And Vertical Velocity(cm/s) Of (a), (b) CTL+3.3km And (c), (d) WND_3.3km Along Line In The Left Upper Panel At 12 And 14UTC 6 Aug 2003=756,866,1

Fig. 3.2.2.172. (a), (b)The Cross-Section Of Rain Water Mixing Ratio(g/kg) Difference Between RNW_3.3km And CTL_3.3km And (c), (d) Between WND_3.3km And CTL_3.3km At 12 And 13UTC 6 Aug 2003=758,868,1

Fig. 3.2.2.173. Schematic Of Nudging, RUC Experiments=762,872,1

Fig. 3.2.2.174. The 6hr-Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) CTL, (B) Nud.L, (c) Nud.2, (d) Nud.4, (e) Nud.7, (f) Nud.8=764,874,1

Fig. 3.2.2.175. The 1hr-Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) - (f) CTL, (b) - (1) Nud. 7 From 13UTC To 18UTC 6 Aug 2003, Respectively=765,875,2

Fig. 3.2.2.176. Time Series Of 1hr-Rain Amount Peak Over Chorwon From 12UTC To 18UTC 6 Aug 2003=767,877,1

Fig. 3.2.2.177. The 6hr-Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) CTL_3.3km, (b) Rainwater RUC, (c) Wind RUC, (d) Rain Water+Wind RUC, Respectively=769,879,1

Fig. 3.2.2.178. The 1hr-Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) - (f) Wind RUC, (g) - (l) Rain Water+Wind RUC From 1300UTC To 18UTC 6 Aug 2003, Respectively=770,880,2

Fig. 3.2.2.179. Comparison Of Threat Scores Between CTL, Rain Water And Wind Data Assimilation For (a)2.5mm, (b)5mm, (c)10mm, And (d)25mm Threshold Value For 6 hours=773,883,1

Fig. 3.3.1.1. Schematic Diagram For FFG Procedure=778,888,1

Fig. 3.3.1.2. Relation Curve Between FFG And Threshold Runoff=779,889,1

Fig. 3.3.1.3. Options And Data Requirements For Threshold Runoff Estimation=781,891,1

Fig. 3.3.1.4. Snyder'S Synthetic Unit Hydrograph=784,894,1

Fig. 3.3.1.5. Soil Moisture Accounting Components For Sacramento Model=789,899,1

Fig. 3.3.1.6. Schematic Diagram Of Soil Moisture Estimation For TOPMODEL=797,907,1

Fig. 3.3.1.7. Estimation Method Of Topographic Index=798,908,1

Fig. 3.3.1.8. Soil Moisture Variation Diagram For TOPMODEL=800,910,1

Fig. 3.3.1.9. Conceptual Presentation For Linear Channel Routing=802,912,1

Fig. 3.3.1.10. Schematic Diagram For Coupling Basin And Channel Flood Routing=803,913,1

Fig. 3.3.1.11. Flow Chart For Kinematic Wave Channel Routing=806,916,1

Fig. 3.3.1.12. Radar Cross-Sectional Area For Target Region=810,920,1

Fig. 3.3.1.13. Raindrop Number-Density Relationship=813,923,1

Fig. 3.3.2.1. Han River Basin=819,929,1

Fig. 3.3.2.2. Stream Network Of Han-River Basin=822,932,1

Fig. 3.3.2.3. DEMs Of Han River Basin=823,933,1

Fig. 3.3.2.4. '00 Landsat-7 ETM(116/34) Image=825,935,1

Fig. 3.3.2.5. Landuse Map In Han River Basin=825,935,1

Fig. 3.3.2.6. Soil Group Distribution In Han River Watershed=826,936,1

Fig. 3.3.2.7. Delineated Subbasins And Stream Line For Threshold Runoff Computation=828,938,1

Fig. 3.3.2.8. Frequency Analysis Result Of Delineated Sub-Catchments=829,939,1

Fig. 3.3.2.9. Cross-Sectional Data For Daemokri Stream=839,949,1

Fig. 3.3.2.10. Longitudinal Cross-Sectional Data For Daemokri Stream=840,950,1

Fig. 3.3.2.11. Regression Analysis For Top Width=848,958,1

Fig. 3.3.2.12. Regression Analysis For Hydraulic Depth=848,958,1

Fig. 3.3.2.13. Regression Analysis For Local Channel Slope=849,959,1

Fig. 3.3.2.14. Manning's Bankfull Flow For Han River=850,960,1

Fig. 3.3.2.15. Frequency Analysis Results Of Manning's Bankfull Flow=851,961,1

Fig. 3.3.2.16. Scatter Distribution Between Qbf And Channel Parameters(이미지 참조)=852,962,1

Fig. 3.3.2.17. The 1-hourly Threshold Runoff For Han River=853,963,1

Fig. 3.3.2.18. The 6-hourly Threshold Runoff For Han River=854,964,1

Fig. 3.3.2.19. Frequency Analysis For Each Parameters And Threshold Runoff=855,965,1

Fig. 3.3.2.20. Distribution Diagram Between Threshold Runoff And Parameters=856,966,1

Fig. 3.3.2.21. Schematic Diagram For Computation Of The Threshold Runoff Along The Reservoir Downstream=858,968,1

Fig. 3.3.2.22. Locations Of Reservoir Within The Han River Watershed. The Reservoirs Included Are Numbered And Shown In Black. The Red Areas Indicate The Delineated Sub-Catchments Within Which The Reservoirs Falls=858,968,1

Fig. 3.3.2.23. Improved Threshold Runoff With 1-hour Effective Rainfall Duration For The Entire Han River Basin=859,969,1

Fig. 3.3.2.24. Improved Threshold Runoff With 3-hour Effective Rainfall Duration For The Entire Han River Basin=859,969,1

Fig. 3.3.2.25. Improved Threshold Runoff With 6-hour Effective Rainfall Duration For The Entire Han River Basin=860,970,1

Fig. 3.3.3.1. Schematic Diagram For FFG Components=861,971,1

Fig. 3.3.3.2. Sub-Catchment Map Of Han River Flood Control Center=863,973,1

Fig. 3.3.3.3. Sub-Catchment Map Of KOWACO=865,975,1

Fig. 3.3.3.4. Hydrologic Unit Map In Korea=867,977,1

Fig. 3.3.3.5. Hydrologic Unit Map For Han River=869,979,1

Fig. 3.3.3.6. Raingage Distribution In Han River Watershed=870,980,1

Fig. 3.3.3.7. Thiessen'S Network For Each Raingage Availability=874,984,1

Fig. 3.3.3.8. Annual Precipitation For Major Dam Sites=875,985,1

Fig. 3.3.3.9. Stage Station Distribution In Han River Watershed=876,986,1

Fig. 3.3.3.10. Dam Site Distribution In Han River Watershed=879,989,1

Fig. 3.3.3.11. KMA's Meteorological Station Map In Han River Watershed=880,990,1

Fig. 3.3.3.12. Time Series Of Meteorological Variable=882,992,2

Fig. 3.3.3.13. Grid System Of NCEP Reanalysis Data=887,997,1

Fig. 3.3.3.14. Solar Radiation Data (W/㎡) Of NCEP Reanalysis Data In Korea=888,998,1

Fig. 3.3.3.15. Calculated Results Of Potential Evapotranspiration(4 Stations)=888,998,1

Fig. 3.3.3.16. Monthly Average Data For PET(4 Stations)=889,999,1

Fig. 3.3.3.17. Snowmelt Model Results=892,1002,1

Fig. 3.3.3.18. Calibrated Results For Hourly Event(Sep. 10, 1990)=895,1005,1

Fig. 3.3.3.19. Model Performance For Hourly Event(Aug. 23, 1995)=897,1007,1

Fig. 3.3.3.20. Model Performance For Hourly Event(July 30, 1999)=898,1008,2

Fig. 3.3.3.21. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Chungju Dam=902,1012,1

Fig. 3.3.3.22. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Gyesan Dam=902,1012,1

Fig. 3.3.3.23. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Hwacheon Dam=903,1013,1

Fig. 3.3.3.24. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Chuncheon Dam=903,1013,1

Fig. 3.3.3.25. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Soyang Dam=904,1014,1

Fig. 3.3.3.26. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Euiam Dam=904,1014,1

Fig. 3.3.3.27. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Cheongpyeong Dam=905,1015,1

Fig. 3.3.3.28. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Paldang Dam=905,1015,1

Fig. 3.3.3.29. Long-Term Runoff Performance For Major Dam Sites=906,1016,3

Fig. 3.3.3.30. Relationship Between The Reservoir Water Level To (a) Volume(Red Symbols) And (b) Surface Area(Magenta Symbols) For The Soyang Reservoir=909,1019,1

Fig. 3.3.3.31. As In Fig. 3.3.3.30 But For Chungju Reservoir=909,1019,1

Fig. 3.3.3.32. Estimation Of The Relationship Between Reservoir Water-Level And Reservoir Volume. The Black Lines Show The Fitted Power Function To The Observed Relationship (Red Symbol) For The Soyang And Chungju Reservoirs=910,1020,1

Fig. 3.3.3.33. The Rule Curves For Soyang And Chungju Reservoirs, Relating Recommended Reservoir Releases To Reservoir Volume. The Black Lines Show The 3Rd Degree Polynomial Function To The Observed Relationship (Red Symbols)=911,1021,1

Fig. 3.3.3.34. The Relationship Between Reservoir Volume To Surface Area. The Black Lines Show The Estimated 3rd Degree Polynomial Function For The Observed Relationship(Red Symbols)(이미지 참조)=911,1021,1

Fig. 3.3.3.35. Simulation(Blue) And Observation(Red) Of Soyang Reservoir Daily Releases. The Upper Panel Has Units Of Cms And The Lower Panel Is The Box-Cox Transformation=912,1022,1

Fig. 3.3.3.36. As In Fig. 3.3.3.35 But For Chungju Reservoir=913,1023,1

Fig. 3.3.3.37. Observed And Simulated Water Level (Upper Panel) In The Soyang Reservoir. The Lower Panel Shows The Simulated Reservoir Storage. The Black Lines In Both Panels Indicate The Maximum Reservoir Capacity=913,1023,1

Fig. 3.3.3.38. As In Fig. 3.3.3.37 But For Chungju Reservoir=914,1024,1

Fig. 3.3.3.39. The Cumulative Observed Inflow And Outflow, And The Simulated Outflow For The Soyang Reservoir=915,1025,1

Fig. 3.3.3.40. As In Fig 3.3.3.39 But For Chungju Reservoir=915,1025,1

Fig. 3.3.3.41. The Observed And Simulated Cumulative Distribution Plots For The So Yang Reservoir=916,1026,1

Fig. 3.3.3.42. As In Fig 3.3.3.41 But For Chungju Reservoir=916,1026,1

Fig. 3.3.3.43. The Calculated Results For Sacramento Model=918,1028,2

Fig. 3.3.3.44. Long-Term Runoff Performance For Han River Sub-Catchment=920,1030,1

Fig. 3.3.3.45. Annual Mean Flow Between Observed And Calculated Flow=921,1031,1

Fig. 3.3.3.46. Guisan Reservoir Daily Simulated And Observed Inflow For 1990 And 1999=922,1032,1

Fig. 3.3.3.47. Chungju Reservoir Daily Simulated And Observed Inflow For 1990 And 1999=922,1032,1

Fig. 3.3.3.48. Cumulative Streamflow Between Observed And Calculated Flow=924,1034,1

Fig. 3.3.3.49. Observed And Calculated Flow For Low Flow Case=924,1034,1

Fig. 3.3.3.50. Observed And Calculated Flow For Medium Flow Case=925,1035,1

Fig. 3.3.3.51. Observed And Calculated Flow For High Flow Case=925,1035,1

Fig. 3.3.3.52. Climatological Variation Of Hydrometeorological Variables For Han River=927,1037,1

Fig. 3.3.3.53. Saturation Fraction(%) Map Of Soil Moisture For Han River=928,1038,1

Fig. 3.3.4.1. Kwanak Radar Umbrella And AWS Distribution=931,1041,1

Fig. 3.3.4.2. Algorithm For Radar Rainfall Estimation=932,1042,1

Fig. 3.3.4.3. Radar Reflectivity And AWS/KMA Rainfall For Kwanak Site=934,1044,3

Fig. 3.3.4.4. Histogram Of Probability Of Detection (POD) Of Non-Zero Rain Over The KWK Radar Umbrella For θ＝0.95˚. Ten Minute Radar Scans Are Used For July 2003=937,1047,1

Fig. 3.3.4.5. Clutter Map Produced For Ph＝0.30 And θ＝0.95˚. Contours Of Clutter Region Are Shown In Red. No Beam Blockage Regions Are Shown. The Radial Distance Is In km And The Azimuth Resolution Is 1 Degree. Ten Minute Radar Scans Were Used For July 2003 To Derive The Map=937,1047,1

Fig. 3.3.4.6. Clutter Map Produced For Pl＝0.002, Ph＝0.30 And θ＝0.05˚. Dots Of Clutter Region And Beam-Blockage/Far-Range Effects Are Shown In Red(이미지 참조)=938,1048,1

Fig. 3.3.4.7. As In Fig. 3.3.4.6 But For pl＝0.002, ph＝0.30 And θ＝0.95˚=939,1049,1

Fig. 3.3.4.8. As In Fig. 3.3.4.6 But For pl＝0.002, ph＝0.30 And θ＝1.95˚=939,1049,1

Fig. 3.3.4.9. As In Fig. 3.3.4.4 But For θ＝0.05˚=940,1050,1

Fig. 3.3.4.10. As In Fig. 3.3.4.4 But For θ＝1.95˚=940,1050,1

Fig. 3.3.4.11. Generated "True" And Noisy Logarithmic Bias Involving Temporal Transitions With σ²b＝0.0123(이미지 참조)=941,1051,1

Fig. 3.3.4.12. Observed And Step-One Predicted Logarithmic Bias(Upper Panel), Standard Deviation Of Predicted Logarithmic Bias(Middle Panel) And Estimated Model Noise Variancedower Panel) Time Traces With R＝0.16=942,1052,1

Fig. 3.3.4.13. As In Fig. 3.3.4.12 But For σ²b＝0.111 And R＝0.25(이미지 참조)=943,1053,1

Fig. 3.3.4.14. As In Fig. 3.3.4.12 But For σ²b＝0.111 And R＝0.49(이미지 참조)=943,1053,1

Fig. 3.3.4.15. Logarithmic Bias Estimates And Associated L-σ Bounds For The First Twenty Days Of July 2003 And For θ＝0.05˚ Algorithm Parameter N＝40 And iT＝1mm/h Is Used(이미지 참조)=944,1054,1

Fig. 3.3.4.16. As In Fig. 3.3.4.15 But For θ＝0.05˚, N＝30 And iT＝2mm/h(이미지 참조)=945,1055,1

Fig. 3.3.4.17. As In Fig. 3.3.4.15 But For θ＝0.95˚, N＝20 And iT＝0.7mm/h(이미지 참조)=946,1056,1

Fig. 3.3.4.18. Study Area With DEMs Of Soyang River Basin And Kwanak Radar Site=947,1057,1

Fig. 3.3.4.19. Bias Adjusted Results On 18-19 July 2003. All Quantities Are Computed To Mean Areal Rainfall For Soyang Watershed=949,1059,1

Fig. 3.3.4.20. As In Fig. 3.3.4.19 But For 22-23 July 2003=949,1059,1

Fig. 3.3.4.21. Observed And Simulated Streamflows From Observed And Radar- Driven Rainfalls=950,1060,1

Fig. 3.3.4.22. Uniform Probability Distribution Based On Monte Carlo Framework=952,1062,1

Fig. 3.3.4.23. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Radar Rainfall With Uniform Distribution=954,1064,1

Fig. 3.3.4.24. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Radar Rainfall With Exponential Relationship=954,1064,1

Fig. 3.3.4.25. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Parameter m With Uniform Probability Distribution=955,1065,1

Fig. 3.3.4.26. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Parameter To With Uniform Probability Distribution=956,1066,1

Fig. 3.3.4.27. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Combined Parameter(m, T0) With Uniform Probability Distribution(이미지 참조)=956,1066,1

Fig. 3.3.4.28. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Combined Condition Between Radar Rainfall And Parameter m=958,1068,1

Fig. 3.3.4.29. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Combined Condition Between Radar Rainfall And Parameter T0(이미지 참조)=958,1068,1

Fig. 3.3.4.30. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Combined Condition Between Radar Rainfall And Parameters m-T0(이미지 참조)=959,1069,1

Fig. 3.3.5.1. Vertical Coordinate Structure For RDAPS Model=964,1074,1

Fig. 3.3.5.2. Horizontal Coordinate Structure For RDAPS Model=965,1075,1

Fig. 3.3.5.3. Nesting Coordinate Structure For RDAPS=965,1075,1

Fig. 3.3.5.4. Forecast Domain And Grid Number Of RDAPS=966,1076,1

Fig. 3.3.5.5. Forecast Cycle Of RDAPS=967,1077,1

Fig. 3.3.5.6. Example For Precipitation Forecast Data Of RDAPS=968,1078,1

Fig. 3.3.5.7. Example For Temperature Forecast Data Of RDAPS=968,1078,1

Fig. 3.3.5.8. Schematic Diagram For Bamse's Object Analysis=969,1079,1

Fig. 3.3.5.9. Statistical Method Of Range Type=972,1082,1

Fig. 3.3.5.10. RDAPS Forecast Time For C1 Case=974,1084,1

Fig. 3.3.5.11. Bias Results For Selected Cases=975,1085,1

Fig. 3.3.5.12. Root Mean Square Error(rmse) Results For Selected Cases=975,1085,1

Fig. 3.3.5.13. Correlation Coefficient(cc) Of Selected Cases=976,1086,1

Fig. 3.3.5.14. Bias Score Of Case C1=976,1086,1

Fig. 3.3.5.15. Bias Score Of Case C2=977,1087,1

Fig. 3.3.5.16. Bias Score Of Case C3=977,1087,1

Fig. 3.3.5.17. Bias Score Of Case C4=978,1088,1

Fig. 3.3.5.18. Bias Score Of Case C5=978,1088,1

Fig. 3.3.5.19. Threat Score Of Case C1=979,1089,1

Fig. 3.3.5.20. Threat Score Of Case C2=980,1090,1

Fig. 3.3.5.21. Threat Score Of Case C3=980,1090,1

Fig. 3.3.5.22. Threat Score Of Case C4=980,1090,1

Fig. 3.3.5.23. Threat Score Of Case C5=981,1091,1

Fig. 3.3.5.24. RDAPS (30km) Grid And Thiessen'S Polygon Over 5 Major Watershed In Korea Peninsula=982,1092,1

Fig. 3.3.5.25. Sub-Catchment Map For Flood Control=983,1093,1

Fig. 3.3.5.26. 1101 Subbasin Results=983,1093,1

Fig. 3.3.5.27. 1102 Subbasin Results=983,1093,1

Fig. 3.3.5.28. 1104 Subbasin Results=984,1094,1

Fig. 3.3.5.29. 1106 Subbasin Results=984,1094,1

Fig. 3.3.5.30. 1108 Subbasin Results=984,1094,1

Fig. 3.3.5.31. 1120 Subbasin Results=984,1094,1

Fig. 3.3.5.32. 1102 Subbasin Results=985,1095,1

Fig. 3.3.5.33. 1104 Subbasin Results=985,1095,1

Fig. 3.3.5.34. 1111 Subbasin Results=985,1095,1

Fig. 3.3.5.35. 1112 Subbasin Results=985,1095,1

Fig. 3.3.5.36. Rmse Over Han River Basin=987,1097,1

Fig. 3.3.5.37. Correlation Coefficient Over Han River Basin=987,1097,1

Fig. 3.3.5.38. Verification Results Of RDAPS Over Han River Basin=988,1098,5

Fig. 3.3.5.39. Schematic Diagram For RDAPS-SFM Coupling=994,1104,1

Fig. 3.3.5.40. Schematic Diagram For Time-Series Coupling Of RDAPS-SFM=995,1105,1

Fig. 3.3.5.41. Rainfall-Runoff Event For Case Study Of RDAPS-SFM Coupling=996,1106,1

Fig. 3.3.5.42. Runoff Computation Results Of RDAPS-SFM Coupling=997,1107,2

Fig. 3.3.5.43. Schematic Diagram Of RDAPS-SFM Ensemble Coupling=1000,1110,1

Fig. 3.3.5.44. Runoff Computation Results Of RDAPS-SFM Ensemble Coupling=1001,1111,1

Fig. 3.3.5.45. Schematic Diagram For RDAPS-SFM Real-Time Adjustment Coupling=1004,1114,1

Fig. 3.3.5.46. Runoff Computation Results Of RDAPS-SFM Real-Time Adjustment Coupling (Soyang River Watershed)=1005,1115,1

Fig. 3.3.5.47. Runoff Computation Results Of RDAPS-SFM Real-Time Adjustment Coupling (Choongju Dam Watershed)=1006,1116,1

Fig. 3.3.5.48. Correlation Analysis Between RDAPS And Observed Mean Areal Precipitation Over Han River Watershed=1007,1117,1

Fig. 3.3.5.49. Correlation Analysis Between RDAPS And Observed Mean Areal Precipitation Over Soyang River Watershed=1007,1117,1

Fig. 3.3.5.50. Streamflow Computation Results Over Han River Watershed. Major Stage Points Are Shown In Figure. Bar Plot Is RDAPS MAP. Solid And Doted Line Indicates Simulated And Observed Streamflow In mm/hour, Respectively=1008,1118,1

Fig. 3.3.5.51. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations For Various Hydrograph Shape. The Nominal Simulation Is Shown In Bold Black Line. Shown Also Are Maximum Dispersion Measure During The Event, RmaxQ, And Dispersion Measure At Peak Flow Time, RQ(Qp), With Associat Times t, And Peak Flow Magnitude Qp(Nom).(이미지 참조)=1009,1119,1

Fig. 3.3.5.52. Analogous Fig. 3.3.5.51, But For Cumulative Hourly Simulations, Showing The Value Of The Cumulative Event Dispersion Measure RmaxC And Associated Time t.(이미지 참조)=1010,1120,1

Fig. 3.3.6.1. Real-Time Soil Moisture Variations Over Han River Subbasins. Forecast Time Is 21:09 KST, July 2003. Mean Soil Moisture Variation Is Shown In Bold Line=1012,1122,1

Fig. 3.3.6.2. As In Fig. 3.3.6.1 But For 21:21 KST, July 2003=1012,1122,1

Fig. 3.3.6.3. As In Fig. 3.3.6.1 But For 22:21 KST, July 2003=1012,1122,1

Fig. 3.3.6.4. As In Fig. 3.3.6.1 But For 23:09 KST, July 2003=1013,1123,1

Fig. 3.3.6.5. Spatial Distribution Of Soil Moisture Variation Over Han River Basin=1013,1123,1

Fig. 3.3.6.6. Hourly Flash Flood Guidance Forecast Based On Subbasin. Forecast Time Is 22:21 KST, July 2003=1014,1124,1

Fig. 3.3.6.7. Hourly Flash Flood Guidance Forecast Based On Grid Of Radar Composite Map. Forecast Time Is 22:21 KST, July 2003=1015,1125,1

Fig. 3.3.6.8. Hourly Radar Rainfall Over Han River Watershed. Observation Time Is 22:22 KST, July 2003=1016,1126,1

Fig. 3.3.6.9. Case Study Result For Potential Occurrence Of Flash Flood=1017,1127,1

Fig. 3.3.6.10. Han River Sub-Catchment Map With Flash Flood Guidance Of A 3-hour Duration Valid For The Period 15 July 2004 00-03UTC=1018,1128,1

Fig. 3.3.6.11. Sample Han River Map With Sub-Catchment RDAPS Mean Areal Precipitation Of A 3-Hour Duration For The Period 15 July 2004 00-03UTC=1019,1129,1

Fig. 3.3.6.12. Han River Sub-Catchment Map With Flash Flood Threat Of A 3-Hour Duration Valid For The Period 15 July 2004 00-03UTC=1020,1130,1

Fig. 3.3.7.1. Schematic Diagram For Real-Time Ffg Watching And Warning System=1021,1131,1

Fig. 3.3.7.2. Structure Of UNIX/Linux Operation System=1023,1133,1

Fig. 3.3.7.3. Pre-Processing Diagram For Real-Time FFG Design=1024,1134,1

Fig. 3.3.7.4. General Weather Information System Of KMA(Source: www.kma.go.kr)=1024,1134,1

Fig. 3.3.7.5. Local Watching System Of KMA(Source: www.kma.go.kr)=1025,1135,1

Fig. 3.3.7.6. Diagram Chart For Hydrology Information System=1029,1139,1

Fig. 3.3.7.7. Hydrometeorological Data Link Structure For FFG Computation=1029,1139,1

Fig. 3.3.7.8. Design Diagram Of Data Processing By The KoFFG System=1031,1141,1

Fig. 3.3.7.9. Time Schedule For The KoFFG System=1032,1142,1

Fig. 3.3.7.10. Display Result With Radar Mean Areal Precipitation For The KoFFG=1033,1143,1

Fig. 3.3.7.11. Display Result With Flash Flood Guidance For The KoFFG=1033,1143,1

Fig. 3.3.7.12. Display Result With RDAPS Mean Areal Precipitation=1034,1144,1

Fig. 3.3.7.13. Display Result With Future Flash Flood Threat(FFFT)=1034,1144,1

Fig. 6.3.1.1. RFCs In USA=1062,1172,1

Fig. 6.3.1.2. Hydrologic Forecast Procedure Of RFC=1063,1173,1

Fig. 6.3.1.3. General Components For NWSRFS=1064,1174,1

Fig. 6.3.1.4. HPC's QPF Information During 6 Hours=1065,1175,1

Fig. 6.3.1.5. HPC's QPF Information During 24 Hours=1065,1175,1

Fig. 6.3.1.6. Example For A Short Term Hydrologic Forecast=1066,1176,1

Fig. 6.3.1.7. RFC's Significant River Flood Outlook For 5 Days=1067,1177,1

Fig. 6.3.1.8. Mid-Term Forecast For Dam Inflow=1068,1178,1

Fig. 6.3.1.9. Computational Procedure For ESP Forecast Method=1069,1179,1

Fig. 6.3.1.10. Long-Term Probability Forecast Using ESP Method=1069,1179,1

Fig. 6.3.2.1. Management Region Of RSMG's Program=1070,1180,1

Fig. 6.3.2.2. Run Control And Palette Of Riverware=1073,1183,1

Fig. 6.3.2.3. Model Graphical User Interface Of Riverware=1073,1183,1

Fig. 6.3.2.4. NEXRAD For Atmospheric Watching System=1074,1184,1

Fig. 6.3.2.5. Official Procedure Of Awards System=1075,1185,1

Fig. 6.3.2.6. Example Of ET Output=1076,1186,1

Fig. 6.3.2.7. Examples Of Water Demand And Rainfall=1076,1186,1

Fig. 6.3.2.8. Examples Of Trial Area And Exchange Information For ET Estimation=1077,1187,1

Fig. 6.3.2.9. Example For Stream Forecast Results Of AHPS=1078,1188,1

Fig. 6.3.2.10. Weekly Exceedance Probability For River Flow Of AHPS=1079,1189,1

Fig. 6.3.2.11. 3 Monthly Exceedance Probability For River Flow Of AHPS=1080,1190,1

Fig. 6.3.2.12. User Observed Station Of North-East Region=1080,1190,1

Fig. 6.3.2.13. Parameters From Fig. 6.3.2.14=1081,1191,1

Fig. 6.3.2.14. Daily Archive Data=1081,1191,1

Fig. 6.3.2.15. Current Real-Time Data=1082,1192,1

Fig. 6.3.2.16. Historical Data Access=1082,1192,1

Fig. 6.3.2.17. Water Year Report(AF, 2000)=1083,1193,1

Fig. 6.3.2.18. Example For Reservoir Operation Of USBR=1083,1193,1

Fig. 6.3.3.1. Locations Of TVA Reservoirs And Power Plants=1084,1194,1

Fig. 6.3.3.2. Flowchart For Daily Dam Discharge Of TVA=1085,1195,1

Fig. 6.3.3.3. Observed Water Level Of Great Falls Dam=1085,1195,1

Fig. 6.3.3.4. Dam Discharge Of Great Falls Dam=1086,1196,1

Fig. 6.3.3.5. Observed Precipitation Of TVA=1086,1196,1

Fig. 6.3.3.6. Predicted Water Level Of Great Falls Dam=1088,1198,1

Fig. 6.3.4.1. Flowchart For Water Level Operation In Japan=1088,1198,1

Fig. 6.3.4.2. Schematic Diagram For Information Collection=1089,1199,1

Fig. 6.3.4.3. Water Level Station And Wireless Middle Machine=1089,1199,1

Fig. 6.3.4.4. Observed Precipitation Image Using Radar=1090,1200,1

Fig. 6.3.4.5. Control A Radius For Radar Observation=1090,1200,1

Fig. 6.3.4.6. Radar Distribution In Japan=1090,1200,1

Fig. 6.3.4.7. Schematic Diagram For Precipitation Forecast=1091,1201,1

Fig. 6.3.4.8. Precipitation Forecast System For Typhoon And Low Pressure=1091,1201,1

Fig. 6.3.4.9. Dam Storage And Flood Forecast System=1092,1202,1

Fig. 6.3.4.10. Estimated Precipitation Using Radar=1092,1202,1

Fig. 6.3.4.11. Information For Precipitation And Water Level In Gohoo City=1093,1203,1

Fig. 6.3.4.12. Example For Draught Information In Japan=1093,1203,1

jpg

Fig. 2.3.2.2. FFG Example In The United States=21,131,1

Fig. 2.3.2.3. FFG Example Is Based On Watershed In The United States=22,132,1

Fig. 3.1.1.3. The Horizontal And Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover From (a, c) Cloud And (b, d) Relative Humidity As The Model 1st Guess Fields=29,139,1

Fig. 3.1.1.4. The Horizontal And Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover With (a, c) 400 km Or (b, d) 100 km Radius Of Influence Of METAR (Cross Point) Data, Respectively=30,140,1

Fig. 3.1.1.5. GMS Infrared Image For 18UTC 06 August 2002=31,141,1

Fig. 3.1.1.6. The (a) Horizontal And (b) Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover Analysis After Inserting The Satellite IR Imagery Data=32,142,1

Fig. 3.1.1.9. The Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Liquid Water/Ice (g/kg) And Vertical Velocity ω (μbar/s) With Maximum Velocity (a) 0.5 m/s And (b) 1 m/s. The Dotted Lines Show The Upward Motions=35,145,1

Fig. 3.1.1.10. The Schematic Diagram Of Balance Algorithm Between Wind, Mass And Cloud Derived ω=36,146,1

Fig. 3.1.1.12. The Model Domain And Terrain Height=39,149,1

Fig. 3.1.1.13. Daily Rainfall Amounts At 5 Cities For July And August, 2002=40,150,1

Fig. 3.1.1.14. The Initial And Hourly Forecast Fields Of Vertically Integrated Cloud (Cloud Water /Ice) Derived By (a~d) Schultz, (e~h) Reisner II And (i~l) WRF Single Momentum Scheme, Respectively=41,151,1

Fig. 3.1.1.16. The Vertical And 850 hPa Distribution Of Cloud Cover Derived By First Guess From (a, c) Cloud And (b, d) Relative Humidity, Respectively=43,153,1

Fig. 3.1.1.17. The (a) Vertical And (b) 850 hPa Distribution Of Cloud Cover With 400 km Radius Of Influence Of METAR (Cross Point) Data=44,154,1

Fig. 3.1.1.18. The Initial And Hourly Forecasted Vertical Cross Section Of Cloud (Cloud Water/Ice) With Maximum Vertical Velocity Of (a~d) 0.5 m/s, (e~h) 1.0 m/s And (i~l) 5.0 m/s, Respectively=45,155,1

Fig. 3.1.1.19. The 3 Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For (a) AWS Observation And (b~e) Each Experiments Valid At 00UTC August 7, 2002=47,157,1

Fig. 3.1.1.20. The 3 Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For (a) AWS Observation And Each (b~e) Experiments Valid At 00UTC July 14, 2002=47,157,1

Fig. 3.1.1.21. The Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For (a, b) CNTL And (c, d) Restart At 18UTC, 19UTC August 6, 2002, Respectively=48,158,1

Fig. 3.1.1.22. The 3 Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For (a, e) AWS Observations, (b, f) CNTL, (c, g) EXP02 And (d, h) Nudging At 21UTC July 13 And 00UTC July 14, 2002, Respectively=49,159,1

Fig. 3.1.1.23. Distribution Of AWS Sites Used For Precipitation Verification=50,160,1

Fig. 3.1.1.28. Analyzed Domain And Observational Data (GOES Infra Red Image And Surface Temperature Observation). White Represents The Region Of Cloud=60,170,1

Fig. 3.1.1.30. (a) The Barnes Surface Temperature Analysis, (c) Including HSM Technique To Barnes And (b) The Difference Between Two Analyses On 1200 UTC 17 February 2004=62,172,1

Fig. 3.1.1.31. The Analyzed Field Of Surface Temperature Using All AWS Data On 0000 UTC 28 April 2004=63,173,1

Fig. 3.1.1.32. The Same As Fig. 3.1.1.30 Except For 0000 UTC 28 April 2004=63,173,1

Fig. 3.1.1.37. KLAPS Surface Pressure Analysis Fields (a) With Variational Analysis And (b) Without Variational Analysis On 0600 UTC 25 Jun. 2003=68,178,1

Fig. 3.1.1.38. KLAPS Surface Pressure Analysis Fields (a) With Variational Analysis (b) And Without Variational Analysis, And The (c) Pressure And (d) Wind Difference Field Between (a) And (b) Over Deogyu Mt Region (2km, 100×100) On 0600 UTC 25 Jun. 2003=69,179,1

Fig. 3.1.1.40. The Location Of (a) East-West And (b) South-North Cross Section For Analyzing Cold And Warm Front. (c,d) And (e,f) Are The Outputs Each With And Without Variational Analysis. And (g) And (h) Are The Differences Between (c) And (d), And (e) And (f) On 0900 UTC 27 Jun. 2003=71,181,1

Fig. 3.1.1.41. AWS Observational Data Of Sea Level Pressure (Pink) And The Initial 6hr-Forecast Of Surface Pressure Of Control(without Variational Analysis Method, Black Dashed) And Experimental (With Variational Analysis Method, Red Solid) SRAPS At (c) Seoul And (d) Daejeon Station On 0600 UTC 27 June 2003=72,182,1

Fig. 3.1.1.42. Observational Images Of (a) Radar Reflectivity And (b) GOES IR. And The 6hr-Forecast Of 3hr Accumulation Precipitation Of (c) Control (Without Variational Analysis Method), (d) Experimental (With Variational Analysis Method) MM5 Model And (e) Difference Between (c) And (d) (exp.-cnt.) On 0600 UTC 27 Jun., 2003=73,183,1

Fig. 3.1.2.1. Distribution Of Radar Sites=76,186,1

Fig. 3.1.2.3. Maximum Radar Reflectivity For Baekryongdo (a), Donghae (b), Gunsan (c), Gwanaksan (d), Gosan (e) And Busan (f) Site At 00 UTC 22 July, 2002=79,189,1

Fig. 3.1.2.4. Maximum (a) And Vertical (b) Radar Reflectivity At 00 UTC 22 July, 2002=79,189,1

Fig. 3.1.2.5. The Horizontal (850 hPa) And Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover Of The First Guess Fields (a,c) And Analysis (b,d) After Inserting The Satellite And METAR Data=81,191,1

Fig. 3.1.2.6. The Horizontal (850 hPa) And Vertical Distribution Of Cloud Cover Analysis And 1hour Simulated Rainfall Amount After Inserting Radar Reflectivity With 0 dBZ (a,d,g), 13 dBZ (Lower), 20 dBZ (Upper) (b,e,h), 30 dBZ (Lower), 40 dBZ (Upper) (c,f,i) Threshold=82,192,1

Fig. 3.1.2.8. The Model Domain And Terrain Height=84,194,1

Fig. 3.1.2.9. Daily Rainfall Amounts At 5 Cities For July And August, 2002=85,195,1

Fig. 3.1.2.10. The Analysis And 1 Hour Simulated Field Of 750 hPa Wind And Vertical Velocity For CTL(a,e), EXP1 (b,f), EXP2 (c,g) And EXP3 (d,h), Respectively=87,197,1

Fig. 3.1.2.11. Same As Fig. 3.1.2.10. Except For 850 hPa Wind And Simulated Reflectivity=87,197,1

Fig. 3.1.2.14. The Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For AWS Observation (a) And CTL (b), EXP1 (c), EXP2 (d) And EXP3 (e) Experiments Valid At 01 UTC July 22, 2002=89,199,1

Fig. 3.1.2.15. The Same As Fig. 3.1.2.14. Except For 02 UTC July 22, 2002=90,200,1

Fig. 3.1.2.16. The Hourly Accumulated Precipitation Amounts For CTL (a,b,c) And Restart (d,e,f) Experiment Without Cloud And Precipitation At 06 UTC, 07 UTC And 08 UTC July 22, 2002, Respectively=90,200,1

Fig. 3.1.2.17. Threat (a,b) And Bias (c,d) Score Of C18N6, H18N6 And H18H6 Experiment For The Threshold 2.54 mm (a,c) And 12.7 mm (b,d), Respectively=92,202,1

Fig. 3.1.2.18. The Model Domain And Terrain Height=97,207,1

Fig. 3.1.2.21. AWS 1-Hour Accumulated Rainfall At 3-h Intervals From 0300 UTC 24 June To 1800 UTC 25 June 2004=101,211,1

Fig. 3.1.2.22. Enhanced Infrared Images From The GOES-9 Satellite At 3-h Intervals From 1800 UTC 23 June To 0900 UTC 24 June 2004=101,211,1

Fig. 3.1.2.23. Satellite-Derived Rain Rates From SSM/I At 0054 UTC 24 June 2004 (a) And Radar Rain Rates At 0050 UTC 24 June 2004 (b)=102,212,1

Fig. 3.1.2.24. Design Of Numerical Experiments For CASE I=102,212,1

Fig. 3.1.2.31. Surface Charts At 6-h Intervals From 1800 UTC 18 June To 0000 UTC 20 June 2004=110,220,1

Fig. 3.1.2.32. Enhanced Infrared Images From The GOES-9 Satellite At 1-h Interval From 2100 UTC 18 June To 0200 UTC 19 June 2004=111,221,1

Fig. 3.1.2.33. Satellite-Derived Rain Rates From SSM/I At 2306 UTC 18 June 2004 (a) And Radar Rain Rate At 2310 UTC 18 June 2004 (b)=111,221,1

Fig. 3.1.3.16. The (a) Position, (b) Orography (m), (c) Topographic Index, And (d) Land Use For The Wonju Domain. The Arrowes Of (c) Denote The Direction Of River Flow=148,258,1

Fig. 3.1.3.19. The Surface Soil Moistures Generated By The (a) 315-Step And (b) 333-Step TOPLATS KLDAS Running And The (c) 315-Step TOPMODEL KLDAS Running, And The (d) USGS Summer Surface Soil Moisture For The Wonju Domain. The Time Of (a) And (c) Is 21 LT 28 June, And That Of (b) Is 6 LT 3 July In 2003=153,263,1

Fig. 3.1.3.22. Soil Moisture Fields Of NCEP Reanalysis-2 Data At March 9, 2004 And March 21, 2002 When Asian Dust Happened. Negative Values Are Shaded In Difference Field (c), (f). (c＝a-b, f＝d-e)=159,269,1

Fig. 3.1.3.24. Model Domain And Its Soil Types=163,273,1

Fig. 3.1.3.25. Difference Of Relative Humidity (%) Between LSM And CTL At (a) 00 UTC March 10 And (b) 00 UTC March 11, 2004. Negative Values Are Shaded=165,275,1

Fig. 3.1.3.26. As In Fig. 3.1.3.25 Except For 2 m Temperature (K)=165,275,1

Fig. 3.1.3.29. Surface Weather Chart At 12 UTC June 18, 2004=169,279,1

Fig. 3.1.3.30. AWS Daily Rainfall (mm) At (a) June 19 And (b) 20, 2004=169,279,1

Fig. 3.1.3.31. The Satellite IR Image Of GOES-9 At 12 UTC June 18, 2004=170,280,1

Fig. 3.1.3.32. Multi Nested Model Domains And Its Landuse Type=170,280,1

Fig. 3.1.3.33. 6h Accumulated Rainfall (mm) Of CTL And LSM During Simulation Period=172,282,1

Fig. 3.1.3.35. Time Series Of 30 Min Rainfall(mm) And Soil Moisture At Majang Station=174,284,1

Fig. 3.1.3.36. Time Series Of Surface Latent Heat Flux(W/㎡) Of CTL And LSM At Majang Station=174,284,1

Fig. 3.1.3.37. Time Series Of (a) 1h Rainfall(mm) And Temperature(℃) Of AWS And (b) 2 m Temperature(℃) Of Simulation CTL And LSM At Majang Station=175,285,1

Fig. 3.1.3.38. 6h Accumulated Rainfall(mm) Of (a) AVN CTL, (b) NCEP2 CTL, (c) AVN LSM, (d) NCEP2 LSM And AWS(Left) At 00 UTC June 20, 2004=176,286,1

Fig. 3.1.3.40. Model Domain For This Study=178,288,1

Fig. 3.1.3.42. As In Fig. 3.1.3.41 Except At 00 UTC August 18, 2004=180,290,1

Fig. 3.1.3.43. Time Series Of Solar Radiation (W/㎡) At Daegwallyeong Station From April 1 To August 31, 2004=180,290,1

Fig. 3.1.3.44. Time Series Of 6h Rainfall And Soil Moisture (SM1-0.05 m, SM2-0.25 m, SM3-0.70 m, And SM4-1.50 m Below Ground) At (a) The Southwest Of China And (b) The Middle Of Korea From 1 April 2004 To 30 September 2005=181,291,1

Fig. 3.1.3.45. Surface Weather Chart At 00 UTC July 8, 2005=182,292,1

Fig. 3.1.3.46. 60h Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) CTL, (b) LSM, And (c) FSM=183,293,1

Fig. 3.1.3.47. Soil Moisture Field (0.05 m Below Ground) At Initial Time, July 8, 2005. (a) FSM, (b) LSM, And (c) Its Difference Between FSM And LSM=184,294,1

Fig. 3.1.3.48. Difference Fields Of Surface Water Vapor Mixing Ratio (g/kg) At Initial Time, July 8, 2005 (a) Between FSM And CTL, And (b) Between FSM And LSM=184,294,1

Fig. 3.1.3.49. As Fig. 3.1.3.48 Except For 2 m Temperature (K)=185,295,1

Fig. 3.1.3.50. As Fig. 3.1.3.48 Except For 850 mb Wind=185,295,1

Fig. 3.1.3.51. As Fig. 3.1.3.48 Except For 850 mb Temperature (K)=186,296,1

Fig. 3.1.3.54. Soil Type Table=194,304,1

Fig. 3.1.3.56. Observed Soil Moisture And Precipitation At Cholwon=196,306,1

Fig. 3.1.3.57. Map Of Soil Type In The 6km Resolution=196,306,1

Fig. 3.1.4.1. The Procedure For Estimating The New Analysis States With EnKF=200,310,1

Fig. 3.1.4.24. Fixed Observation Locations Used To Generate The Simulated Rawinsonde Observations=236,346,1

Fig. 3.1.4.25. RMS Forecast Errors At t＝0, 24, And 48h Produced By Fixed Observation And By Adaptive Strategies Based On The Error, The Adjoint Sensitivity, And The Singular Vectors For 16 Fixed And 16 Adaptive Observations=236,346,1

Fig. 3.1.5.1. 13-h Forecast Of 1-hr Accumulated Precipitation By (a) MM5 And (b) WRF Models With 18 km Resolution At 1300 UTC 6 Aug. 2003. (c) Infrared Satellite Image For 1230 UTC 6 Aug 2003 And (d) AWS 1hr Accumulated Precipitation=239,349,1

Fig. 3.1.5.2. 24-hForecast Of 6-hr Accumulated Precipitation By (a) MM5 And (b) WRF Models With 9 km Resolution At 1200 UTC 31 Aug. 2002. (c) Infrared Satellite Image For 11 UTC 31 Aug 2002 And (d) AWS 6-hr Accumulated Precipitation=240,350,1

Fig. 3.1.5.3. 25-h Forecast Of 1hr Accumulated Precipitation By (a) MM5 And (b) WRF Models With 9 km Resolution At 0700 UTC 22 Jul 2002=241,351,1

Fig. 3.1.5.5. 15-h Forecast Of 3hr Accumulate Rain By MM5 For (a),(c) And (e) And By WRF For (b),(d) And (f) WrRF At 0300 UTC 27 Jun 2003. Horizontal Resolutions Are (a),(b) 18 km And (c),(d),(e),(f) 9 km. The Physics Option Of (a),(b),(c) And (d) With Cumulus Parameterization And Microphysics, And (e) And (f) With Only Microphysics=246,356,1

Fig. 3.1.5.6. Observed 3hr Accumulated Precipitation (Left) Same Time As Fig. 3.1.5.5 And Enhanced Infrared Satellite Image (Right) At 0200 UTC 27 Jun 2003=247,357,1

Fig. 3.1.5.7. 18-h Forecast Of 3 hr Accumulate Rain By (a), (c), (e) MM5 And (b), (d), (f) WRF At 0600 UTC 9 Jul 2003. Horizontal Resolutions Are (a), (b) 18 km And (c), (d), (e), (f) 9 km. The Physics Option Of (a), (b), (c), (d) With Cumulus Parameteriz And Microphysics, And (e), (f) With Only Microphysics=248,358,1

Fig. 3.1.5.8. Observed 3 hr Accumulate Precipitation (Left) Same Time As Fig. 3.1.5.7 And Enhanced Infrared Satellite Image (Right) At 0430 UTC 9 Jul 2003=249,359,1

Fig. 3.1.5.9. 24-h Forecast Of 3 hr Accumulate Rain By (a), (c), (e) MM5 And (b), (d), (f) WRF At 0000 UTC 25 Jul 2003. Horizontal Resolutions Are (a), (b) 18 km And (c), (d), (e), (f) 9 km. The Physics Option Of (a), (b), (c), (d) With Cumulus Parameterization And Microphysics, And (e), (f) With Only Microphysics=250,360,1

Fig. 3.1.5.10. Observed 3-hr Accumulated Precipitation (Left) At The Same Time As Fig. 3.1.5.9 And Enhanced Infrared Satellite Image (Right) At 2230 UTC 24 Jul 2003=252,362,1

Fig. 3.1.5.11. The Location Of Observed Precipitation With (a) AWS And The Grid Points Of Simulated Precipitation With (b) MM5 And (c) WRF In 18 km Resolution=252,362,1

Fig. 3.1.5.15. 3-hr Accumulated Rain By (a) MM5 And (b) WRF At 0600 UTC 9 Jul 2003. Cross Sections Of Potential Temperature (Cross Sections Indicate The Red Lines In (a) And (b)) Are (c) MM5 And (d) WRF=258,368,1

Fig. 3.1.5.16. Same As Fig. 3.1.5.15 Except Without Cumulus Parameterization=259,369,1

Fig. 3.1.5.17. Simulated 3-hr Accumulated Rainfall With (a) 18 km, (b) 9 km (Cumulus Parameterization And Microphysics), (c) 9 km (Microphysics) By WRF And (d) AWS Observation At 2100 UTC 9 Jul 2003=260,370,1

Fig. 3.1.5.19. (a) Topography Of Studied Domain From USGS 30" Data And (b) More Detailed Map From Sub-Box In (a). The Cross Section A, B, C And D Are For One-Dimensional Spectral Analysis=266,376,1

Fig. 3.1.5.22. Contours Of Log Spectral Power (㎡㎢) Contained In The Terrain Height Of Korean Peninsula (Fig. 3.1.5.19 (a)), (a) Wavenumbers Between 0 And 0.5 ㎞-²(b) A Detail For Wavenumbers Between 0 And 0.12 ㎞-²(이미지 참조)=271,381,1

Fig. 3.1.5.25. Simulated Wind Stream Lines At Lowest Model Layer For 2000 UTC 14 July 2004.=275,385,1

Fig. 3.1.5.26. Same As Fig. 3.1.5.25 But At 00 UTC 25 July 2004=276,386,1

Fig. 3.1.5.27. Root Mean Square Vector Errors And Unbiased Root Mean Square Vector Errors For Model Simulation With Different Resolution=277,387,1

Fig. 3.1.5.30. Simulation Domain Used For CWW (Coupled WRF-WW3 Model) And CWT (Coupled WRF-TIDE Model). The Horizontal Resolutions Of WRF, WW3, And Tide Are 18 km, 1/6 And 1/12 Degrees, Respectively=289,399,1

Fig. 3.1.5.31. Surface Analysis Chart At 1200 UTC 14 July 2004. A, B, And C Indicate The Region Of Changma Front, Northh-Pacific High, And Tyhoon (TS 0409 KOMPASU), Respectively=290,400,1

Fig. 3.1.5.32. Coupled Simulation Of Chamock Parameter At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=290,400,1

Fig. 3.1.5.33. Sensible Heat Flux (Wm-2) Of Coupled Simulation (CWW) At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004. Negative Heat Flux Is Represented By Dotted Contour Line=291,401,1

Fig. 3.1.5.34. Latent Heat Flux (Wm-2) And 10 m Wind Vector Of Coupled Simulation (CWW) At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=293,403,1

Fig. 3.1.5.35. The Stream Line Of Surface Wind Difference Between CWW And N032 At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=293,403,1

Fig. 3.1.5.36. Same As In Fig. 3.1.5.35 Except For N018=294,404,1

Fig. 3.1.5.37. The Difference Of Latent Heat Flux (Wm-2) Between CWW And N032 At (a) 1800 UTC 14 And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=295,405,1

Fig. 3.1.5.38. Same As In Fig. 3.1.5.37 Except N018=295,405,1

Fig. 3.1.5.39. Comparisons Of Roughness Length (m) Of (a) CWW And N032 And (b) CWW And N018 At 1800 UTC 14 July 2004=297,407,1

Fig. 3.1.5.40. Wind Speed Differences Against Roughness Length For CWW - N032 And CWW - N018. CWW - N032 (a) At 1800 UTC 14 July And (b) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004. CWW - N018 (c) At 1800 UTC 14 July And (d) 0000 UTC 15 July 2004=298,408,1

Fig. 3.1.5.41. Same As In Fig. 3.1.5.40 Except Latent Heat Flux Differences=299,409,1

Fig. 3.1.5.42. Tide Height Simulated By Tide Model (TM) At 1400 UTC b) 1500 UTC, c) 1600 UTC And d) 1700 UTC 14 July 2004=301,411,1

Fig. 3.1.5.43. The Stream Line Of Surface Wind Difference Between CWT And N018 At (a) 1400 UTC, (b) 15000 UTC, (c) 1600 UTC, And 1700 UTC 14 July 2004=302,412,1

Fig. 3.1.6.1. WRF Model Domain And Rainfall Comparison Domain=307,417,1

Fig. 3.1.6.2. Time-Longitude Diagram For 20 June - 20 July 2003 Using 1-hour Accumulated Rainfall (mm) Averaged Meridionally Between 34˚ And 38˚N=308,418,1

Fig. 3.1.6.3. Time-Longitude Diagram For 20 June - 20 July 2003 Using 1-Day Accumulated Rainfall (mm) Averaged Meridionally Between 24.5˚ And 45.5˚N=309,419,1

Fig. 3.1.6.4. Time-Longitude Rainfall Frequency Diagram For 20 June - 20 July 2003 Using 1-hour Accumulated Data Averaged Meridionally Between 34˚And 38˚N=310,420,1

Fig. 3.1.6.5. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.2 But For A Time-Latitude Diagram. Rainfall Is Averaged From 126˚ to 130˚E=313,423,1

Fig. 3.1.6.6. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.3 But For A Time-Latitude Diagram. Rainfall Is Averaged From 115.5˚ To 142.5˚E=314,424,1

Fig. 3.1.6.7. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.4 But For A Time-Latitude Rainfall Frequency Diagram=314,424,1

Fig. 3.1.6.8. Time-Longitude Diagram For 2-3 July 2003 Using 1-hour Accumulated Rainfall Averaged Meridionally Between 34˚ And 38˚N=315,425,1

Fig. 3.1.6.9. Moisture Fluxes From (a) NCEP Reanalysis Data And (b) WRF Model For 06Z 2 - 06Z 3 July 2003=316,426,1

Fig. 3.1.6.11. Model Domain For Domain 1 (18km) And Domain 2 (6km)=323,433,1

Fig. 3.1.6.12. Illustration Of Microphysics Processes=323,433,1

Fig. 3.1.6.13. Illustration Of Cumulus Processes=324,434,1

Fig. 3.1.6.14. Daily Precipitation (mm/24hours) During Experiment Period=326,436,1

Fig. 3.1.6.15. Six-Hour Surface Weather Charts (Upper), GOES Enhanced IR Imageries (Middle), And Radar Imageries (Lower) From 0000 To 1800 UTC 20 June 2004=327,437,1

Fig. 3.1.6.16. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.15 Except For 0000 To 1800 UTC 20 June 2004=327,437,1

Fig. 3.1.6.17. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.15 Except For 0000 To 1800 UTC 24 June 2004=328,438,1

Fig. 3.1.6.18. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.15 Except For 0000 To 1800 UTC 5 June 2003=328,438,1

Fig. 3.1.6.19. Equivalent Potential Temperature With Horizontal Wind Vector (Left Column) And Column Integrated Total Hydrometeor (mm) With Mean Surface Level Pressure At (a) 0600 UTC 5 March 2004, (b) 0600 UTC 20 June 2004, (c) 0600 UTC 24 June 2004, (d) 0000 UTC 7 August 2003=330,440,1

Fig. 3.1.6.20. [Left] Cloud Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Circulation Vector And [Right] Rain Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Snow Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Graupel Mixing Ratio (Shaded), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn) In (a) WSM5, (c) WSM3 At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=331,441,1

Fig. 3.1.6.21. [Left] Cloud Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Circulation Vector And [Right] Rain Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Snow Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Graupel Mixing Ratio (Shaded), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn) In (a) WSM6, (b) Lin_et_al, (c) Ferrier (New Eta) At 20 June 0600UTC (12 Fcst)=333,443,1

Fig. 3.1.6.24. [Left] Cloud Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Circulation Vector And [Right] Rain Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Snow Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Graupel Mixing Ratio (Shaded), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn) In (a) WSM6, (b) Lin_et_al, (c) Ferrier (New Eta) At 5 March 0600UTC (186 Fcst)=336,446,1

Fig. 3.1.6.26. [From Left] 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation Of Cumulus Part, Explicit Part, Sum Of Cumulus And Explicit Part And CAPE In (a) Kain-Fritsch, (b) Grell-Devenyi Ensemble, (c) Betts-Miller-Janjic With WSM6 At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=338,448,1

Fig. 3.1.6.27. [Left] CAPE And [Right] 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation In (a) Kain-Fritsch, (b) No Cumulus Parameterization With WSM6 At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=339,449,1

Fig. 3.1.6.28. (a) Cloud Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio (Dashed), (b) Rain Water Mixing Ratio (Solid), Snow Mixing Ratio (Dashed), Graupel Mixing Ratio (Shaded), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn), (c) Equivalent Potential Temperature And Circulation Vector, (d) 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation At [Left] 5 March 0600 UTC (18 Fcst), [Right] 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=340,450,1

Fig. 3.1.6.29. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.28 Except For (a) 18km Domain With Kain-Fritsch, (b) 18km Domain Without Cumulus Parameterization, (c) 6km Domain With Kain-Fritsch, (d) 6km Domain Without Cumulus Parameterization At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=341,451,1

Fig. 3.1.6.30. 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation In (a), (c) And Cloud Water Mixing Ratio(Shaded), Divergence (Solid And Dashed), Temperature (Line Horizontally Drawn) In (d), (e) And Radar-Echo Of Mt. Gwangduk In (c). (a), (d) With Kain-Fritsch, (c), (e) With Cumulus Parameterization With WSM6 At 20 June 0600 UTC (12 Fcst)=342,452,1

Fig. 3.1.6.31. (a) Surface Weather Chart, (b) GEOS Enhanced IR Images, (c) Distribution Of Lightening For 1 Hours, And (d) 6-hour Accumulated Rainfall By AWS From 1800 UTC 4 To 1800 UTC 5 March 2004=346,456,1

Fig. 3.1.6.32. (a) Cloud Water Mixing Ratio(Solid), Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio(Dashed), (b) Equivalent Potential Temperature And Circulation Vector, (c) CAPE, (d) CIN At 0600 UTC 5 March 2004=348,458,1

Fig. 3.1.6.33. (a) CAPE, (b) CIN, (c) SREH, (d) 6 Hour-Accumulated Precipitation At 0600 UTC 5 March 2004=348,458,1

Fig. 3.1.6.34. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.31 Except For The Period From 0000 UTC 20 To 0000 UTC 21 June 2004=350,460,1

Fig. 3.1.6.35. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.32 Except For 0600 UTC 20 June 2004=351,461,1

Fig. 3.1.6.36. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.33 Except For 0600 UTC 20 June 2004=351,461,1

Fig. 3.1.6.37. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.31 Except For The Period From 0000 UTC 24 To 0000 UTC 25 June 2004=353,463,1

Fig. 3.1.6.38. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.32 Except For 0600 UTC 24 June 2004=354,464,1

Fig. 3.1.6.39. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.33 Except For 0600 UTC 24 June 2004=354,464,1

Fig. 3.1.6.40. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.31 Except For The Period From 0600 UTC 5 To 0600 UTC 6 August 2003=355,465,1

Fig. 3.1.6.41. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.32 Except For 0000 UTC 6 August 2003=356,466,1

Fig. 3.1.6.42. Same As Fig. 3.1.6.33 Except For 0000 UTC 6 August 2003=356,466,1

Fig. 3.1.7.7. Improved Computation Of Nested Domains=378,488,1

Fig. 3.1.7.10. Execution Of Two Different WRF Models=393,503,1

Fig. 3.1.7.11. Wind Difference Of A WRF Model After Receiving Boundary Data=394,504,2

Fig. 3.2.1.1. The Visualization Of AWS Observation (a) Temperature, (b) Hourly Precipitation And (c) Wind Vector At 1300 UTC 5 August 2002=413,523,1

Fig. 3.2.1.3. DMSP F14 OLS (a) Visible Image And (b) Infrared Image At 23:22 UTC 6 August 2002=415,525,1

Fig. 3.2.1.4. The Snap Shot Of WDSS-II=416,526,1

Fig. 3.2.1.5. The Visualization Of WSR-88D Radar Reflectivity With Using WDSS-II=417,527,1

Fig. 3.2.1.6. The Database Of (a) GMS Satellite Image, (b) KMA Radar Image And (c) Air Force Radar Image=419,529,1

Fig. 3.2.1.7. GMS Infrared Images (a) Before And (b) After Removing The Coastal Lines=420,530,1

Fig. 3.2.1.8. The Time Series Of (a) GMS Infrared Image And (b) Radar Image At The Latitude 126.5˚E=421,531,1

Fig. 3.2.1.9. Daily Rainfall Distribution During 18 Days From 31 July To 17 August 1998=422,532,1

Fig. 3.2.1.10. The Areas To Average The DMSP Infrared Data And The GMS Infrared Image=423,533,1

Fig. 3.2.1.11. Comparison DMSP Infrared Data And GMS Infrared Image Data=423,533,1

Fig. 3.2.1.13. Disposition Of TDWR And LLWAS At Incheon International Airport=429,539,1

Fig. 3.2.1.16. Enhanced GMS Infrared Image At 0300 LST 7 August 2002. A Rainband Was Extended From The Yellow Sea To The East Sea In The Direction Of Southwest To Northwest Direction=434,544,1

Fig. 3.2.1.17. Atmospheric Sounding Chart At 0300 LST 7 August 2002 On Osan=435,545,1

Fig. 3.2.1.18. Wind Profiles At 0300 LST 6 And 7 August 2002=435,545,1

Fig. 3.2.1.19. Movement Of Convective Precipitation Band Shown By VIL (a) At 0209 LST (b) 0341 LST, (c) VIL Difference Between 0209 LST And 0341 LST, And (d) VIL Data At 0510 LST On 7 August 2002=437,547,1

Fig. 3.2.1.21. Maps Of VIL And VIL Difference At Two Different Times On August 2002. (a) VIL (0~12km, 0209 LST) (b) VIL (0~6km, 0209 LST) (c) VIL (0~12km, 050 LST) (d) VIL (0~6km, 0550 LST) (e) Difference Of VIL (0~12km) Between 0209 And 0550 LST (f) Difference Of VIL (0~6km) Between 0209 And 0550 LST=440,550,1

Fig. 3.2.1.24. Enhanced GMS Infrared Images At (A) 0900 LST, (b) 1500 LST 24 August 2003=444,554,1

Fig. 3.2.1.26. Time Sequence Of PPIs Of Radar Reflectivity From Two Elevation=448,558,1

Fig. 3.2.1.27. Time Sequence Of PPis Of Radar Reflectivity From Two Elevation At Four Times=450,560,1

Fig. 3.2.1.28. Time Sequence Of PPIs Of Radar Reflectivity From Two Elevation At Four Times=452,562,1

Fig. 3.2.1.29. PPIs Of Radar Velocity At Four Times=453,563,1

Fig. 3.2.1.30. Enlarged Image Inside Of The Rectangle In Fig. 3.2.1.29(a)=455,565,1

Fig. 3.2.1.31. PPI Of Radar Reflectivity Factor At 1045 LST. Rectangle Of Red Line Present Cross-Section Area=455,565,1

Fig. 3.2.1.32. Vertical Cross Section Of Radar Reflectivity Factor At (a) 1006 LST (b) 1019 LST (c) 1032 LST (d) 1045 LST (e) 1100 LST (f) 1113 LST On 24 August 2002=456,566,1

Fig. 3.2.1.33. VIL From The Surface Up To The Altitude Of 10 km At (a) 1014 LST (b) 1040 LST (c) 1054 LST (d) 1108 LST On 24 August 2002=458,568,1

Fig. 3.2.1.34. Topographical Distribution And Radar Coverage Of WSR-88D Doppler Radar At RKJK And RKSG With 50 Km Intervals, Respectively=461,571,1

Fig. 3.2.1.35. Distribution Of 48-hour And 12-hour Accumulated Precipitation For Heavy Rainfall Cases (a) Case 1: Form 26 To 27 July, 1996, (b) Case 2:From 24~26 July, 2003 (c) From 5 To 6 August 2003, (d) From 17 To 18 September 2003, (e) From 8 To 10 July 2003=467,577,1

Fig. 3.2.1.36. GOES-9 Visible Imagery And JMH Charts Of Surface, 700 hPa, 500 hPa, And 200 hPa At 00 UTC 9 July 2003=470,580,1

Fig. 3.2.1.37. Same As In Fig. 3.2.1.36 Except For At 00 UTC 6 August 2003=471,581,1

Fig. 3.2.1.38. Skew-T Log-P Chart At 00 UTC 25 July 2003 (a) And 00 UTC 09 July 2003 (b), Respectively=474,584,1

Fig. 3.2.1.41. Satellite Imagery (GMS-5 For (a), GEOS-9 For (b)-(c)) And Corresponding Reflectivity Of WSR-88D Doppler Radar Each From 1130 UTC 26 To 0230 UTC 27 July 1996 (a), From 0900 UTC To 12 UTC 24 August 2003 (b), And 2300 UTC 8 To 0200 UTC 9 July 2003 (c), Respectively=478,588,3

Fig. 3.2.1.43. Surface Temperature And Wind Fields At (a) 0030 Utc 25 July 2003 And (b) 0900 UTC 24 August 2003 From Automated Weather System In KMA. Small Box At Left Bottom Shows Reflectivity Of Corresponding Time=485,595,2

Fig. 3.2.1.44. The Composite Reflectivity (CR) (Left Panels), Storm-Relative Velocity (SR) (Middle Panels), And Base Velocity (BV) (Right Panels) From (a) 1000UTC Through (e) 1200UTC 26 July 1996 With 30-Minute Intervals, Respectively. The Green Colors Denote Inbound (Toward Radar) While The Red Colors Refer To Outboung (Away From The Radar) And The Yellow Circles In Thick Dashed Lines In (d) And (e) Denote Mesocyclone Activities=489,599,1

Fig. 3.2.1.45. The Cross-Section Of Reflectivity And Base Velocity Perpendicular To MCS Movement (North-South) Following The Strongest Storm In MCS From 1010UTC To 1230UTC With 10-Minute Intervals, Respectively, (Upper Panel) And The Cross-Section Of (a) Reflectivity, (b) Base Velocity, And (c) Storm-Relative Velocity At 1150UTC 26 Along The Line E-F Shwn In Fig. 3.2.1.43 e=490,600,1

Fig. 3.2.1.46. Composite Reflectivity Of Greater Than 40 dBZ From 1800 UTC 26 To 0300 UTC With 1-hour Intervals. The Dotted Lines Refer Representto A Small Clusters And The Solid Lines Mean Represent A Large Clusters. The Numbers In The Clusters Denote Small Convective Cells=491,601,1

Fig. 3.2.1.47. Reflectivity Of WSR-88D From 0800 UTC To 2100 UTC 24 August 2003 And 1800 UTC 17 To 0700 UTC 18 September 2003=493,603,2

Fig. 3.2.1.48. The Boundaries Of Convective Storm Boundaries (a) From 1000 UTC To 1500 UTC 26 For The First MCS, And (b) From 1801UTC 26 To 0232UTC 27 July For The Second MCS. The Open Arrows With Light Shading Show The Temporal Change Of Boundaries. The Thick Arrows At The Right Sides Denote The Mean Movement Of Individual Cells (CC), The Movement Of Storm System (CS), The Propagation Vectors (PS), And The Environmental Wind Speed Resulted From Osan Rawindsonde Data (We)=496,606,1

Fig. 3.2.2.1. Satellite Infrared Images From 0600 UTC To 1800 UTC 13 October 1997=501,611,1

Fig. 3.2.2.2. Augmented Satellite Images For 1200 UTC (Left Panel) And 1800 UTC (Right Panel) 13 October 1997=501,611,1

Fig. 3.2.2.3. The Surface Analysis At 0000 UTC (Upper Panel), 0600 UTC (Middle Panel), And 1200 UTC (Lowr Panel) On 13 October 1997=502,612,1

Fig. 3.2.2.4. The 920 hPa Analysis At 0000 UTC 13 October 1997=503,613,1

Fig. 3.2.2.5. The NCEP Analysis Of Moisture Flux (Upper Panel) And Equivalent Potential Temperature (Lower Panel) At 850 hPa At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=504,614,1

Fig. 3.2.2.6. The RDAPS Analysis Of 750 hPa Vertical p-Velocity At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=504,614,1

Fig. 3.2.2.7. The Saturation Deficit Fields For 700 hPa At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=506,616,1

Fig. 3.2.2.8. K-Index (Upper Panel) And Showalter Index (Lower Panel) At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=507,617,1

Fig. 3.2.2.9. The 500 hPa Analysis At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997. Red Circle Indicates Wind At Osan=508,618,1

Fig. 3.2.2.10. The 500 hPa Relative Vorticity=509,619,1

Fig. 3.2.2.11. The 200 hPa Divergence And Isotach=509,619,1

Fig. 3.2.2.12. MM5 Analysis Of The 200 hPa Potential Vorticity And Isotach At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel) On 13 October 1997=509,619,1

Fig. 3.2.2.13. Relative Humidity Observed From The AWS Network From 0900 To 2400 LST 13 October 1997=510,620,1

Fig. 3.2.2.14. Wind Vector Observed From The AWS Network From 0600 LST To 2200 LST On 13 October 1997=511,621,1

Fig. 3.2.2.15. Vertical Soundings At Osan At 0000 UTC (Upper Panel) And 1200 UTC (Lower Panel) On 13 October 1997=513,623,1

Fig. 3.2.2.16. Vertical Sounding Of Osan At 0600 UTC 13 October 1997 (Upper Panel) And A Typical Sounding Resulting In A Supercell Storm (Lower Panel)=514,624,1

Fig. 3.2.2.17. Storm Relative Helicity (SREH) At 3 km Height At 0000 UTC (Left Panel) And 1200 UTC (Right Panel)=515,625,1

Fig. 3.2.2.19. Nested Domain Used In This Study With Horizontal Grid Space Of 54 km (D0), 18 km (D1), 6 km (D3), And 2 km (D4)=517,627,1

Fig. 3.2.2.20. Forecast Fields Of Mixing Ratios Of (a) Cloud Ice And (b) Graupel At t ＝ 34 hr (1000 UTC 13 October 1997) For A 6 km Grid Domain With EXP1=518,628,1

Fig. 3.2.2.21. Forecast Fields Of Cloud Ice Mixing Ratio At a) t ＝ 35 hr (1100 UTC 13 October 1997) And b) t ＝ 36 hr (1200 UTC 13 October 1997) For A 6 km Grid Domain With EXP1=519,629,1

Fig. 3.2.2.22. Same As In Fig.3.2.2.20 But At t ＝ 22 hr (1000 UTC 13 October 1997) With EXP2=520,630,1

Fig. 3.2.2.23. Same As In Fig.3.2.2.20 But For A 2 km Grid Domain=521,631,1

Fig. 3.2.2.24. Same As In Fig.3.2.2.22 But For A 2 km Grid Domain=521,631,1

Fig. 3.2.2.25. Vertical Cross Sections Of Forecasted Fields Of Wind Vectors And Mixing Ratios Of Cloud Water (Contour) And Rainwater (Color Filled) At 1000 UTC 13 October 1997 For a) EXP1 And b) EXP2=522,632,1

Fig. 3.2.2.26. Domain Maximum Vertical Velocity For EXP2=523,633,1

Fig. 3.2.2.28. Model Terrain Elevation For L-Topo(a) And H-Topo(b) For The 1 km Domain Run With 200 m Interval=529,639,1

Fig. 3.2.2.30 Difference Of Terrain Height And Rainfall Amount Between L-Topo And H-Topo. Contour Lines Represent The Difference Of Terrain Height With 200 M Interval. Shading Represent Difference Of Rainfall Amounts [mm]=531,641,1

Fig. 3.2.2.31. Rain Water Mixing Ratio And Vertical Velocities In An Southwest-Northeast Cross Section Passing The Peak Of Jiri Mountain At 18 Utc July 1998 For L-Topo(a), H-Topo(b). Shading Represent Rain Water Mixing Ratio Using g/kg Units And The Contour Line Represent The Vertical Velocities With 30 cm/s Interval. Circulation Wind Vector Also Is Superimposed=532,642,1

Fig. 3.2.2.32. Comparison Of The 12 Hour Accumulated Rainfall Amounts Of The Observed Aws Data, L-Topo, And H-Topo At SanChong And KuRae From 15 LST 31 July To 03 LST 1 August 1998=533,643,1

Fig. 3.2.2.33. Observed Distribution Of 18 Hour Accumulated Rainfall On July, 16-17 1992=537,647,1

Fig. 3.2.2.34. Simulated 18 Hour Accumulated Rainfall Amount For CNTL=537,647,1

Fig. 3.2.2.35. Simulated 18 Hour Accumulated Rainfall Amount For NOTOPO=537,647,1

Fig. 3.2.2.36. Accumulated Precipitation From 00 UTC 30 August To 00 UTC 1 September 2002=539,649,1

Fig. 3.2.2.37. The Same As Fig. 3.2.2.36 Except For Simulated Precipitation With WRF Model=539,649,1

Fig. 3.2.2.38. Sea Level Pressure (Black), Temperature(Red) And Wind Field(Barb) At 21 UTC 30 August 2002=540,650,1

Fig. 3.2.2.39. Cross Section Of Temperature And Relative Humidity=541,651,1

Fig. 3.2.2.40. 3-hour Accumulated Precipitation At 06 UTC 31 August 2002 Without Topo=541,651,1

Fig. 3.2.2.41. The Model Domain And Topography=546,656,1

Fig. 3.2.2.42. Surface Weather Charts From FNL Data At (a) 12UTC 13, (b) 00UTC 14, (c) 12UTC 14 And (d) Ooutc 15 Aug 2003=547,657,1

Fig. 3.2.2.43. 850hPa Weather Charts From FNL Data At (a) 12UTC 13, (b) 00UTC 14, (c) 12UTC 14 And (d) 00UTC 15 Aug 2003=547,657,1

Fig. 3.2.2.44. GMS Satellite Image At 14 UTC And 18UTC 14 July 2001And KMA Radar Image At 13 UTC And 18UTC 14 July 2001=548,658,1

Fig. 3.2.2.45. The 6Hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a) dm2 (b) dm3 At 18UTC 06 August 2003=550,660,1

Fig. 3.2.2.46. Same As 2.17 But For Simulated By WRFV2=550,660,1

Fig. 3.2.2.47. The 24hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a) 3km Domain And (b) 1km And Observation 00UTC 15 July 200=552,662,1

Fig. 3.2.2.48. Time Series Of 1h-Rainfall Amount=553,663,1

Fig. 3.2.2.49. The 1hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a) dm3 (b) dm4 (c) Observation At 14 UTC And (d),(e) And (f) Is Same As (a), (b) And (c) But For 18 UTC 14 July 2001=554,664,1

Fig. 3.2.2.50 The Cross-Section Of Reflectivity (a) dm3 (b) dm4 At 18 UTC 14 July 2001=554,664,1

Fig. 3.2.2.51. Radar Reflectivity Image At 14 UTC And 18 UTC 14 July 2001=555,665,1

Fig. 3.2.2.52. Low-Level Radar Reflectivity Patterns In Narrow Cold-Frontal Rainbands Approaching The Coast Of Washington State On (a) 14 November 1976, (b) 17 November 1976, (c) 21 November 1976, And (d) 8 December 19761. (From Hobbs And Biswas, 1979)=555,665,1

Fig. 3.2.2.53. Cross Section Of Relative Vorticity (Shading), Equivalent Potential Temperature (Red Line), Wind Vector (Arrow), Hydrometeors (Blue Line) (a) dm3, (b) dm4 At 14UTC And (c) dm3, And (d) dm4 At 18UTC 14 July 2001=557,667,1

Fig. 3.2.2.54. A Schematic Of How A Typical Vortex-Tube Changes Its Orientation By Interaction With A Convective Element (a) In The Initial Stage (b) At A Later Stage=557,667,1

Fig. 3.2.2.55. Cross Section Of Divergence(Red Line) And Convergence (Blue Dashed Line) Of (a) dm3 And (b) dm4 And Vertical Velocity (Upward: Red Line, Downward : Blue Dashed Line) Of (c) dm3 And (d) dm4 At 14UTC 14 July 2001=558,668,1

Fig. 3.2.2.56. Same As Fig. 3.2.2.55 But For At 18UTC 14 July 2001=559,669,1

Fig. 3.2.2.57. The Cross Section Of Base Velocity At 18UTC 14 July 2001=560,670,1

Fig. 3.2.2.58. Schematic Diagram Of Consecutive Convection Cell Responsible For Heavy Rainfall=560,670,1

Fig. 3.2.2.64. Horizontal Winds (Vectors) And Vertical Velocities (Contours) Of A Simulated Storm For a) Verification, b) Control Run, c) Single-Step Phase Correction, And d) Multi-Step Phase Correction. Modified From Brewster (2003a)=576,686,1

Fig. 3.2.2.65. Forecasted Fields Of Reflectivity And Wind Barbs For (a) Without Phase-Correction And (b) With Phase-Correction, And (c) Corresponding Radar Observations Valid At Forecast Time Of 2 hr 10 Min (2010 UTC)=579,689,1

Fig. 3.2.2.66. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 2 hr 40 Min (2040 UTC)=580,690,1

Fig. 3.2.2.67. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 3 hr 10 Min (2110 UTC)=581,691,1

Fig. 3.2.2.68. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 4 hr (2200 UTC)=582,692,1

Fig. 3.2.2.69. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 5 hr (2300 UTC)=583,693,1

Fig. 3.2.2.70. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.65 But For Valid At Forecast Time Of 6 hr (0000 UTC)=584,694,1

Fig. 3.2.2.71. Model Domains (Grids),(a) Mother Domain With 30 km Resolution, And (b) Nested Domain With 10 km Resolution=595,705,1

Fig. 3.2.2.72. (a) Weather Chart Of Surface, (b) 1000-500hPa Thickness And 700hPa T-Td 00UTC 6 Aug. 2003, (c) Radar Image , (d) Skew-T Log-P Diagram Of Osan At 12UTC 6 Aug. 2003, (e) 12-Hour Accumulated Observed Rainfall (mm), And (f) Precipitation Intens=597,707,1

Fig. 3.2.2.73. Convection Triggered Grid Points, (a) CNTL, (b) DTRH, (c) TKET And (d) TAKF. + Means Deep Convection, And 0 Means Shallow Convection=601,711,1

Fig. 3.2.2.76. Cumulus Heating And Drying (K/hour) At A Point Where Convection Is Triggered In All Experiments=603,713,1

Fig. 3.2.2.77. Averaged Ice Mixing Ratio (g/kg) Time Series Over Main Precipitation Region For Domain 1=605,715,1

Fig. 3.2.2.78. Same As In Fig. 3.2.2.75 Except For 24-Hour Running Of Model ForDomain 1=605,715,1

Fig. 3.2.2.79. 12-hour Accumulated Rainfall (mm) For Domain 1=606,716,1

Fig. 3.2.2.81. 12-hour Accumulated Rainfall (mm) For Domain 2.=611,721,1

Fig. 3.2.2.82. Rainfall Intensity (mm/h) Time Series At Maximum Rainfall Point From 06 To 18 UTC 6 Aug. 2003. Solid Lines Are For Simulated Total Rain, And Dotted Lines Are For Simulated Convective Rain For Domain 2=612,722,1

Fig. 3.2.2.83. Mixing Ratio Time Series At Maximum Rainfall Point From 06 To 18 UTC 6 Aug. 2003 For Domain 2=613,723,1

Fig. 3.2.2.84. Vertical Profile Of (a) Temperature Difference From CNTL (K) , (b) Relative Humidity (%), (c) Vertical Velocity (cm/s). Average From 13 To 18 UTC 6 Aug. 2003 For Domain 2=614,724,1

Fig. 3.2.2.85. Vertical Profile Of (a) Cumulus Tendencies (K/hour), (b) Q1 (Apparent Heat Source) And Q2 (Apparent Moisture Sink). Average From 13 To 18 UTC 6 Aug. 2003 For Domain 2=615,725,1

Fig. 3.2.2.86. Accumulated Rainfall Amount (mm) For 12 UTC 6-06 UTC 7 August 2002 Over South Korea=620,730,1

Fig. 3.2.2.87. Left And Right Panels Represent Surface ((a), (b)) And Upper ((c), (d) At 850 hPa, (e), (f) At 700 hPa, (g), (h) At 500 hPa, (i), (j) At 300 hPa) Weather Charts For 12 UTC 6 And 00 UTC 7 August 2002, Respectively=622,732,2

Fig. 3.2.2.88. GMS-5 Enhanced Infrared Images From 12 UTC To 23 UTC 6 August 2002=625,735,2

Fig. 3.2.2.89. The Composite Radar Images From 1230 UTC To 2330 UTC 6 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 15 dBZ=628,738,2

Fig. 3.2.2.90. The Distribution Of Aws 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) From 13 UTC 6 To 00 UTC 7 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=631,741,2

Fig. 3.2.2.92. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) For 30 km Domain (D1) In Control Experiment From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=636,746,1

Fig. 3.2.2.93. Same As Fig.3.2.2.92, Except For 10 km Domain (D2)=638,748,1

Fig. 3.2.2.94. Same As Fig.3.2.2.93, Except For 3.3 km Domain (D3)=640,750,1

Fig. 3.2.2.95. Same As Fig.3.2.2.92, Except For 1.1 km Domain (D4)=642,752,1

Fig. 3.2.2.96. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) Averaged Over D4 From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002, Obtained From 30 km Grid Spacing (Solid), 10 km Grid Spacing (Dotted), 3.3 km Grid Spacing (Dashed) And 1.1 km Grid Spacing (Dot-Dashed)=643,753,1

Fig. 3.2.2.98. Same As Fig.3.2.2.97, Except For 10 km Grid Spacing (D2) Of KF1E2 ((a), (b), (c)), BMJ1E2 ((d), (e), (f)), And GD1E2 ((g), (h), (i)) Experiment=648,758,1

Fig. 3.2.2.101. Same As Fig.3.2.2.100, Except For KF12E3 ((a), (b), (c)), BMJ12E3 ((d), (e), (f)), And GD12E3 ((g), (h), (i)) Experiment=651,761,1

Fig. 3.2.2.102. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) For 3.3 km Domain (D3) Using WSM 3 Microphysics From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=654,764,1

Fig. 3.2.2.103. Same As Fig.3.2.2.102, Except For 1.1 km Domain (D4)=655,765,1

Fig. 3.2.2.104. The Simulated 1-hour Rainfall Amount (mm) For 3.3 km Domain (D3) Using WSM 6 Microphysics From 13 UTC To 21 UTC 6 August 2002. Shading Indicates The Area Over 5 mm=657,767,1

Fig. 3.2.2.105. Same As Fig.3.2.2.104, Except For 1.1 km Domain (D4)=658,768,1

Fig. 3.2.2.111. The Best Track And Time Series Of The Minimum Surface Pressure (hPa) Of Typhoon Maemi (From KMA)=669,779,1

Fig. 3.2.2.112. The Best Track And Time Series Of The Minimum Surface Pressure (hPa) Of Typhoon Rusa (From KMA)=671,781,1

Fig. 3.2.2.113. The (a) Surface And (b) 850 hPa Weather Chart For 1200 UTC 31 Aug. 2002 (From KMA)=672,782,1

Fig. 3.2.2.114. The Nested Domains Of MM5 For (a) Domain 1 (54 km) And Domain 2 (18 km)=673,783,1

Fig. 3.2.2.116. The 6-hourly Track Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Initial Fields (Red Line: EX-NO, Blue Line: EX-VO) With 6-hourly Observed Data (Black Line) Provided By RSMC Tokyo-Typhoon Center=678,788,1

Fig. 3.2.2.117. The Time Series Of The Intensity (Minimum Surface Pressure) Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Initial Fields With 6-hourly Observed Data=679,789,1

Fig. 3.2.2.118. The Predicted Sea Level Pressure Field And Surface Wind Vector (a) Before And (b) After Bogussing At Initial Model Time (1200 UTC 11 September 2003)=680,790,1

Fig. 3.2.2.119. The Predicted Vertical Cross Sections Of Equivalent Potential Temperature And Wind Vector Parallel To The Cross Section Along The Red Lines Shown In Fig.3.2.2. 5.8. (a) Before And (b) After Bogussing At Initial Model Time (1200 UTC 11 September 2003)=681,791,1

Fig. 3.2.2.120. The Time Series Of Minimum Surface Pressure (hPa) In Simulations Using Different Convective Parameterizations With 6-hourly Observed Data=683,793,1

Fig. 3.2.2.123. The 6-hourly Track Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different W Values (Red Line: 0.85, Blue Line: 0.90, Brown Line: W 0.95) With 6-Hourly Observed Data (Black Line) Provided By RSMC Tokyo-Typhoon Center=689,799,1

Fig. 3.2.2.124. The Time Series Of The Intensity (Minimum Surface Pressure) Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Stability Weight Values With 6-Hourly Observed Data=689,799,1

Fig. 3.2.2.125. The 6-hourly Track Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different τ Values (Red Line: 30 Min, Blue Line: 50 Min, Brown Line: 70 Min) With 6-hourly Observed Data (Black Line) Provided By RSMC Tokyo-Typhoon Center=691,801,1

Fig. 3.2.2.126. The Time Series Of The Intensity (Minimum Surface Pressure) Predicted By Model In The Simulations Using Different Adjustment Time Scale Values With 6-Hourly Observed Data=691,801,1

Fig. 3.2.2.127. The Time Series Of The Calculated Vertical Wind Shear And The Typhoon Intensity For Rusa (2002)=694,804,1

Fig. 3.2.2.128. The Moisture Flux (MFLX) Convergence Fields Of Rusa At (a) 1200 UTC 29, (b) 0000 UTC 30, (c) 1200 UTC 30, (d) 0000 UTC 31, (e) 1200 UTC 31 Aug. 2002, And (f) 0000 UTC 1 Sep. 2002=695,805,1

Fig. 3.2.2.129. The 1-h Accumulated Precipitation Amount (mm) And Predicted (Blue Line) And Observed (Black Line) Track At (a) t ＝ 0 h, (b) t ＝ 6 h, (c) t ＝ 9 h, (d) t ＝ 12 h, t ＝ 15 h, And (a) t ＝ 18 h=697,807,1

Fig. 3.2.2.130. The Predicted Vertical Cross Sections Of Wind Vector And Equivalent Potential Temperature (Θe, In K) At (a) t ＝ 0 h, (b) t ＝ 6 h, (c) t ＝ 9 h, (d) t ＝ 12 h, (e) t ＝ 15 h, And (f) t ＝ 18 h(이미지 참조)=698,808,1

Fig. 3.2.2.131. The Predicted 850 hPa Rain Water Mixing Ratio Field At (a) 0300 LST, (b) 0500 LST, (c) 0700 LST, (d) 0900 LST, (e) 1100 LST, And (f) 1300 LST 31 Aug. 2002=700,810,1

Fig. 3.2.2.132. Same As Fig. 3.2.2.131. Except For At (a) 1500 LST, (B) 1700 LST, (c) 1900 LST, (d) 2100 LST, (e) 2300 LST 31 Aug. 2002, And (f) 01 LST 01 Sept. 2002=700,810,1

Fig. 3.2.2.133. The Predicted 850 hPa Wind Vectors And Wind Speed (Shaded) At (a) 0300 LST, (b) 0500 LST, (c) 0700 LST, (d) 0900 LST, (e) 1100 LST, And (f) 1300 LST 31 Aug. 2002=701,811,1

Fig. 3.2.2.134. Same As Fig.3.2.2.133. Except For At (a) 1500 LST, (b) 1700 LST, (c) 1900 LST, (D) 2100 LST, (e) 2300 LST 31 Aug. 2002, And (f) 0100 LST 01 Sept. 2002=701,811,1

Fig. 3.2.2.135. The 1-h Accumulated Precipitation Amount (mm) Using Bogussing With Tc Component At (a) 0300 LST, (b) 0400 LST, (c) 0500 LST, (d) 0600 LST, (e) 0700 LST, (f) 0800 LST, (g) 0900 LST, (h) 1000 LST, And (i) 1100 LST. 31 Aug. 2002=702,812,1

Fig. 3.2.2.136. Same As Fig.3.2.2.135. Except For Without TC Component=703,813,1

Fig. 3.2.2.137. The 1-h Accumulated Precipitation Amount (mm) Using Bogussing With TC Component At (a) 1500 LST, (b) 1600 LST, (c) 1700 LST, (d) 1800 LST, (e) 1900 LST, And (f) 2000 LST 31 Aug. 2002=704,814,1

Fig. 3.2.2.138. Same As Fig.3.2.2.137. Except For Without TC Component=704,814,1

Fig. 3.2.2.139. The 24-h Accumulated Precipitation Amount (mm) At (a) Jiri Mountain, (b) Taebaek Mountains=706,816,1

Fig. 3.2.2.140. The Time Series Of 1h-Accumulated Rainfall Amount (mm) At The Grid Point Where The Predicted Maximum 24h-Accumulated Rainfall Was Recorded=707,817,1

Fig. 3.2.2.141. Horizontal Distribution Of 24-hour Accumulated Rainfall (Upper) And Time Series Of 1-hour Accumulated Rainfall (Lower)=709,819,1

Fig. 3.2.2.142. 12-hour Interval GMS-5 IR Images From 0000 UTC 3 August To 0000 UTC 6 August 1998=710,820,1

Fig. 3.2.2.143. Best Track Of Typhoon Otto From JTWC=711,821,1

Fig. 3.2.2.144. Model Domains For Experiments=713,823,1

Fig. 3.2.2.145. Distribution Of Observation Points For BDA=713,823,1

Fig. 3.2.2.146. Initial Sea-Level Pressure Distributions Before BDA (Upper Left) And After BDA (Upper Right) And Wind Vectors At 850-hPa Level Before BDA (Lower Left) And After BDA (Lower Right). Thick Dots Designate The Observed Typhoon Locations=714,824,1

Fig. 3.2.2.147. Sea-Level Pressure And 24-hour Accumulated Rainfall Distributions Of Control (Upper) And BDA (Lower) Experiments=715,825,1

Fig. 3.2.2.148. Cross-Section Of Equivalent Potential Temperature (K), Rain Water (＞0.03 g/kg Shaded) And Cross-Sectional Wind Vectors Along The Line Given In Fig. 3.2.2.147=716,826,1

Fig. 3.2.2.149. 6-hourly Differences Of Moisture Flux At 850 hPa Level Between Two Experiments. Solid Red Contours Represent Positive Values And Blue Dashed Negative Values. Black Vectors In The Figures Represent Moisture Flux Vectors=717,827,2

Fig. 3.2.2.150. Differences Of Wind Vectors And Water Vapor Mixing Ratios Between The Two Experiments At 850 hPa Level=720,830,1

Fig. 3.2.2.151. (a) 24-hr Accumulated Rainfall Amount From 00UTC, 6 To 00UTC, 7 August 2003, And (b) 6-hr Accumulated Rainfall Amount From 12UTC To 18UTC, 6 Aug 2003=724,834,1

Fig. 3.2.2.152. (a) - (h) 1-hr Accumulated Rainfall Amount From 12UTC To 19UTC, 6 Aug 2003, Respectively=725,835,1

Fig. 3.2.2.153. Surface Weather Charts From JMA At (a) 06UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 18UTC 6 And (d) 00UTC 7 Aug 2003=727,837,1

Fig. 3.2.2.154. 850hPa Charts From AVN (a) 06UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 18UTC 6 And (d) 00UTC 7 Aug 2003=728,838,1

Fig. 3.2.2.156. 200hPa Charts From AVN (a) 06UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 18UTC 6 And (d) 00UTC 7 Aug 2003=730,840,1

Fig. 3.2.2.157. Radar Reflectivity From KMA At (a) 13UTC, (b) 14UTC, (c) 15UTC 6, (d) 16UTC, (e) 17UTC And , (f) 18UTC 6 Aug 2003=732,842,1

Fig. 3.2.2.158. Vertical Cross Section Of Radar Reflectivity From WSR-88D(RKSG) Over cChorwon At (a) 11UTC, (b) 12UTC, (c) 13UTC, (d) 14UTC, (e) 15UTC And , (f) 16UTC 6 Aug 2003=733,843,1

Fig. 3.2.2.159. Horizontal Radial Velocity At (a) 12UTC, (b) 15UTC 6 Aug 2003=734,844,1

Fig. 3.2.2.161. The Horizontal Wind Distribution Calculated From Radial Velocity Of The Synthesized WSR-88Dat 5km Level=738,848,1

Fig. 3.2.2.162. (a) Rain Water Mixing Ratio Distribution On (a) 3km And, (b) 5.5km Level From Radar At 1200UTC 6 Aug 2003=738,848,1

Fig. 3.2.2.163. Schematic Of Sensitivity Test Design For Radar Data Assimilation=740,850,1

Fig. 3.2.2.164. Rainwater Mixing Ratio Distribution From CTL_10km On (a) 850hPa, (b) 700hPa, (c) 500hPa And From RNW_10km On (k) 850hPa, (e) 700hPa, (f) 500hPa At 12UTC 6 Aug 2003=741,851,1

Fig. 3.2.2.166. The 6hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a), (b) CTL_10km, (c), (d) RNW_10km, (e), (f) WND_10km And (g), (h) RNW+WND_10km From 12UTC To 0700UTC 6 Aug 2003=744,854,2

Fig. 3.2.2.167. The 6hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a), (b) CTL_3.3km, (c), (d) RNW_3.3km, (e), (f) WND_3.3km And (g), (h) RNW+WND_3.3km From 12UTC To 0700UTC 6 Aug 2003=746,856,2

Fig. 3.2.2.168. The 1hr-Accumulated Rainfall (a), (b) CTL_3.3km, (c), (d) RNW_3.3km, (e), (f) WND_3.3km And (g), (h) RNW+WND_3.3km At 13UTC And 14UTC 6 Aug 2003=749,859,2

Fig. 3.2.2.169. Time Series Of 1-hour Accumulated Total Rain Water Amount Over (a) "A" Box And (b) "B" Box In The Left Upper Panel From 12UTC 6 To Ooutc 7 Aug 2003=752,862,1

Fig. 3.2.2.170. (a) Vertical Distribution Of Temperature Deviation Over Chorwon At 15UTC 6 Aug 2000. The Cross-Section Of Equivalent Potential Temperature(K) Difference Of (b), (c) RNW_3.3km - CTL_3.3km And (d), (e) WND_3.3km-CTL_3.3km At 13 And 15UTC 6 Aug 2003=754,864,1

Fig. 3.2.2.171. The Cross-Section Of Convergence/Divergence Field, Cross-Sectional Wind Component(m/s), And Vertical Velocity(cm/s) Of (a), (b) CTL+3.3km And (c), (d) WND_3.3km Along Line In The Left Upper Panel At 12 And 14UTC 6 Aug 2003=756,866,1

Fig. 3.2.2.172. (a), (b)The Cross-Section Of Rain Water Mixing Ratio(g/kg) Difference Between RNW_3.3km And CTL_3.3km And (c), (d) Between WND_3.3km And CTL_3.3km At 12 And 13UTC 6 Aug 2003=758,868,1

Fig. 3.2.2.173. Schematic Of Nudging, RUC Experiments=762,872,1

Fig. 3.2.2.174. The 6hr-Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) CTL, (B) Nud.L, (c) Nud.2, (d) Nud.4, (e) Nud.7, (f) Nud.8=764,874,1

Fig. 3.2.2.175. The 1hr-Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) - (f) CTL, (b) - (1) Nud. 7 From 13UTC To 18UTC 6 Aug 2003, Respectively=765,875,2

Fig. 3.2.2.176. Time Series Of 1hr-Rain Amount Peak Over Chorwon From 12UTC To 18UTC 6 Aug 2003=767,877,1

Fig. 3.2.2.177. The 6hr-Accumulated Rainfall Of (a) CTL_3.3km, (b) Rainwater RUC, (c) Wind RUC, (d) Rain Water+Wind RUC, Respectively=769,879,1

Fig. 3.3.1.1. Schematic Diagram For FFG Procedure=778,888,1

Fig. 3.3.1.3. Options And Data Requirements For Threshold Runoff Estimation=781,891,1

Fig. 3.3.1.5. Soil Moisture Accounting Components For Sacramento Model=789,899,1

Fig. 3.3.1.7. Estimation Method Of Topographic Index=798,908,1

Fig. 3.3.1.9. Conceptual Presentation For Linear Channel Routing=802,912,1

Fig. 3.3.1.10. Schematic Diagram For Coupling Basin And Channel Flood Routing=803,913,1

Fig. 3.3.1.13. Raindrop Number-Density Relationship=813,923,1

Fig. 3.3.2.1. Han River Basin=819,929,1

Fig. 3.3.2.2. Stream Network Of Han-River Basin=822,932,1

Fig. 3.3.2.3. DEMs Of Han River Basin=823,933,1

Fig. 3.3.2.4. '00 Landsat-7 ETM(116/34) Image=825,935,1

Fig. 3.3.2.5. Landuse Map In Han River Basin=825,935,1

Fig. 3.3.2.6. Soil Group Distribution In Han River Watershed=826,936,1

Fig. 3.3.2.7. Delineated Subbasins And Stream Line For Threshold Runoff Computation=828,938,1

Fig. 3.3.2.9. Cross-Sectional Data For Daemokri Stream=839,949,1

Fig. 3.3.2.10. Longitudinal Cross-Sectional Data For Daemokri Stream=840,950,1

Fig. 3.3.2.11. Regression Analysis For Top Width=848,958,1

Fig. 3.3.2.12. Regression Analysis For Hydraulic Depth=848,958,1

Fig. 3.3.2.13. Regression Analysis For Local Channel Slope=849,959,1

Fig. 3.3.2.14. Manning's Bankfull Flow For Han River=850,960,1

Fig. 3.3.2.16. Scatter Distribution Between Qbf And Channel Parameters(이미지 참조)=852,962,1

Fig. 3.3.2.17. The 1-hourly Threshold Runoff For Han River=853,963,1

Fig. 3.3.2.18. The 6-hourly Threshold Runoff For Han River=854,964,1

Fig. 3.3.2.20. Distribution Diagram Between Threshold Runoff And Parameters=856,966,1

Fig. 3.3.2.21. Schematic Diagram For Computation Of The Threshold Runoff Along The Reservoir Downstream=858,968,1

Fig. 3.3.2.22. Locations Of Reservoir Within The Han River Watershed. The Reservoirs Included Are Numbered And Shown In Black. The Red Areas Indicate The Delineated Sub-Catchments Within Which The Reservoirs Falls=858,968,1

Fig. 3.3.2.23. Improved Threshold Runoff With 1-hour Effective Rainfall Duration For The Entire Han River Basin=859,969,1

Fig. 3.3.2.24. Improved Threshold Runoff With 3-hour Effective Rainfall Duration For The Entire Han River Basin=859,969,1

Fig. 3.3.2.25. Improved Threshold Runoff With 6-hour Effective Rainfall Duration For The Entire Han River Basin=860,970,1

Fig. 3.3.3.2. Sub-Catchment Map Of Han River Flood Control Center=863,973,1

Fig. 3.3.3.4. Hydrologic Unit Map In Korea=867,977,1

Fig. 3.3.3.5. Hydrologic Unit Map For Han River=869,979,1

Fig. 3.3.3.6. Raingage Distribution In Han River Watershed=870,980,1

Fig. 3.3.3.7. Thiessen'S Network For Each Raingage Availability=874,984,1

Fig. 3.3.3.9. Stage Station Distribution In Han River Watershed=876,986,1

Fig. 3.3.3.10. Dam Site Distribution In Han River Watershed=879,989,1

Fig. 3.3.3.11. KMA's Meteorological Station Map In Han River Watershed=880,990,1

Fig. 3.3.3.12. Time Series Of Meteorological Variable=882,992,2

Fig. 3.3.3.13. Grid System Of NCEP Reanalysis Data=887,997,1

Fig. 3.3.3.14. Solar Radiation Data (W/㎡) Of NCEP Reanalysis Data In Korea=888,998,1

Fig. 3.3.3.15. Calculated Results Of Potential Evapotranspiration(4 Stations)=888,998,1

Fig. 3.3.3.16. Monthly Average Data For PET(4 Stations)=889,999,1

Fig. 3.3.3.17. Snowmelt Model Results=892,1002,1

Fig. 3.3.3.18. Calibrated Results For Hourly Event(Sep. 10, 1990)=895,1005,1

Fig. 3.3.3.21. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Chungju Dam=902,1012,1

Fig. 3.3.3.22. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Gyesan Dam=902,1012,1

Fig. 3.3.3.23. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Hwacheon Dam=903,1013,1

Fig. 3.3.3.24. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Chuncheon Dam=903,1013,1

Fig. 3.3.3.25. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Soyang Dam=904,1014,1

Fig. 3.3.3.26. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Euiam Dam=904,1014,1

Fig. 3.3.3.27. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Cheongpyeong Dam=905,1015,1

Fig. 3.3.3.28. Long-Term Runoff Analysis In Paldang Dam=905,1015,1

Fig. 3.3.3.29. Long-Term Runoff Performance For Major Dam Sites=906,1016,3

Fig. 3.3.3.30. Relationship Between The Reservoir Water Level To (a) Volume(Red Symbols) And (b) Surface Area(Magenta Symbols) For The Soyang Reservoir=909,1019,1

Fig. 3.3.3.31. As In Fig. 3.3.3.30 But For Chungju Reservoir=909,1019,1

Fig. 3.3.3.32. Estimation Of The Relationship Between Reservoir Water-Level And Reservoir Volume. The Black Lines Show The Fitted Power Function To The Observed Relationship (Red Symbol) For The Soyang And Chungju Reservoirs=910,1020,1

Fig. 3.3.3.33. The Rule Curves For Soyang And Chungju Reservoirs, Relating Recommended Reservoir Releases To Reservoir Volume. The Black Lines Show The 3Rd Degree Polynomial Function To The Observed Relationship (Red Symbols)=911,1021,1

Fig. 3.3.3.34. The Relationship Between Reservoir Volume To Surface Area. The Black Lines Show The Estimated 3rd Degree Polynomial Function For The Observed Relationship(Red Symbols)(이미지 참조)=911,1021,1

Fig. 3.3.3.39. The Cumulative Observed Inflow And Outflow, And The Simulated Outflow For The Soyang Reservoir=915,1025,1

Fig. 3.3.3.40. As In Fig 3.3.3.39 But For Chungju Reservoir=915,1025,1

Fig. 3.3.3.41. The Observed And Simulated Cumulative Distribution Plots For The So Yang Reservoir=916,1026,1

Fig. 3.3.3.42. As In Fig 3.3.3.41 But For Chungju Reservoir=916,1026,1

Fig. 3.3.3.43. The Calculated Results For Sacramento Model=918,1028,2

Fig. 3.3.3.44. Long-Term Runoff Performance For Han River Sub-Catchment=920,1030,1

Fig. 3.3.3.45. Annual Mean Flow Between Observed And Calculated Flow=921,1031,1

Fig. 3.3.3.48. Cumulative Streamflow Between Observed And Calculated Flow=924,1034,1

Fig. 3.3.3.49. Observed And Calculated Flow For Low Flow Case=924,1034,1

Fig. 3.3.3.50. Observed And Calculated Flow For Medium Flow Case=925,1035,1

Fig. 3.3.3.51. Observed And Calculated Flow For High Flow Case=925,1035,1

Fig. 3.3.3.52. Climatological Variation Of Hydrometeorological Variables For Han River=927,1037,1

Fig. 3.3.3.53. Saturation Fraction(%) Map Of Soil Moisture For Han River=928,1038,1

Fig. 3.3.4.1. Kwanak Radar Umbrella And AWS Distribution=931,1041,1

Fig. 3.3.4.3. Radar Reflectivity And AWS/KMA Rainfall For Kwanak Site=934,1044,3

Fig. 3.3.4.4. Histogram Of Probability Of Detection (POD) Of Non-Zero Rain Over The KWK Radar Umbrella For θ＝0.95˚. Ten Minute Radar Scans Are Used For July 2003=937,1047,1

Fig. 3.3.4.5. Clutter Map Produced For Ph＝0.30 And θ＝0.95˚. Contours Of Clutter Region Are Shown In Red. No Beam Blockage Regions Are Shown. The Radial Distance Is In km And The Azimuth Resolution Is 1 Degree. Ten Minute Radar Scans Were Used For July 2003 To Derive The Map=937,1047,1

Fig. 3.3.4.7. As In Fig. 3.3.4.6 But For pl＝0.002, ph＝0.30 And θ＝0.95˚=939,1049,1

Fig. 3.3.4.8. As In Fig. 3.3.4.6 But For pl＝0.002, ph＝0.30 And θ＝1.95˚=939,1049,1

Fig. 3.3.4.9. As In Fig. 3.3.4.4 But For θ＝0.05˚=940,1050,1

Fig. 3.3.4.10. As In Fig. 3.3.4.4 But For θ＝1.95˚=940,1050,1

Fig. 3.3.4.18. Study Area With DEMs Of Soyang River Basin And Kwanak Radar Site=947,1057,1

Fig. 3.3.4.19. Bias Adjusted Results On 18-19 July 2003. All Quantities Are Computed To Mean Areal Rainfall For Soyang Watershed=949,1059,1

Fig. 3.3.4.20. As In Fig. 3.3.4.19 But For 22-23 July 2003=949,1059,1

Fig. 3.3.4.21. Observed And Simulated Streamflows From Observed And Radar- Driven Rainfalls=950,1060,1

Fig. 3.3.4.22. Uniform Probability Distribution Based On Monte Carlo Framework=952,1062,1

Fig. 3.3.4.23. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Radar Rainfall With Uniform Distribution=954,1064,1

Fig. 3.3.4.24. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Radar Rainfall With Exponential Relationship=954,1064,1

Fig. 3.3.4.25. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Parameter m With Uniform Probability Distribution=955,1065,1

Fig. 3.3.4.26. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Parameter To With Uniform Probability Distribution=956,1066,1

Fig. 3.3.4.27. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Combined Parameter(m, T0) With Uniform Probability Distribution(이미지 참조)=956,1066,1

Fig. 3.3.4.28. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Combined Condition Between Radar Rainfall And Parameter m=958,1068,1

Fig. 3.3.4.29. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Combined Condition Between Radar Rainfall And Parameter T0(이미지 참조)=958,1068,1

Fig. 3.3.4.30. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations And Cumulative Simulations For Combined Condition Between Radar Rainfall And Parameters m-T0(이미지 참조)=959,1069,1

Fig. 3.3.5.4. Forecast Domain And Grid Number Of RDAPS=966,1076,1

Fig. 3.3.5.6. Example For Precipitation Forecast Data Of RDAPS=968,1078,1

Fig. 3.3.5.7. Example For Temperature Forecast Data Of RDAPS=968,1078,1

Fig. 3.3.5.11. Bias Results For Selected Cases=975,1085,1

Fig. 3.3.5.12. Root Mean Square Error(rmse) Results For Selected Cases=975,1085,1

Fig. 3.3.5.13. Correlation Coefficient(cc) Of Selected Cases=976,1086,1

Fig. 3.3.5.14. Bias Score Of Case C1=976,1086,1

Fig. 3.3.5.15. Bias Score Of Case C2=977,1087,1

Fig. 3.3.5.16. Bias Score Of Case C3=977,1087,1

Fig. 3.3.5.17. Bias Score Of Case C4=978,1088,1

Fig. 3.3.5.18. Bias Score Of Case C5=978,1088,1

Fig. 3.3.5.24. RDAPS (30km) Grid And Thiessen'S Polygon Over 5 Major Watershed In Korea Peninsula=982,1092,1

Fig. 3.3.5.25. Sub-Catchment Map For Flood Control=983,1093,1

Fig. 3.3.5.26. 1101 Subbasin Results=983,1093,1

Fig. 3.3.5.27. 1102 Subbasin Results=983,1093,1

Fig. 3.3.5.28. 1104 Subbasin Results=984,1094,1

Fig. 3.3.5.29. 1106 Subbasin Results=984,1094,1

Fig. 3.3.5.30. 1108 Subbasin Results=984,1094,1

Fig. 3.3.5.31. 1120 Subbasin Results=984,1094,1

Fig. 3.3.5.32. 1102 Subbasin Results=985,1095,1

Fig. 3.3.5.33. 1104 Subbasin Results=985,1095,1

Fig. 3.3.5.34. 1111 Subbasin Results=985,1095,1

Fig. 3.3.5.35. 1112 Subbasin Results=985,1095,1

Fig. 3.3.5.38. Verification Results Of RDAPS Over Han River Basin=989,1099,4

Fig. 3.3.5.41. Rainfall-Runoff Event For Case Study Of RDAPS-SFM Coupling=996,1106,1

Fig. 3.3.5.42. Runoff Computation Results Of RDAPS-SFM Coupling=997,1107,2

Fig. 3.3.5.43. Schematic Diagram Of RDAPS-SFM Ensemble Coupling=1000,1110,1

Fig. 3.3.5.44. Runoff Computation Results Of RDAPS-SFM Ensemble Coupling=1001,1111,1

Fig. 3.3.5.45. Schematic Diagram For RDAPS-SFM Real-Time Adjustment Coupling=1004,1114,1

Fig. 3.3.5.46. Runoff Computation Results Of RDAPS-SFM Real-Time Adjustment Coupling (Soyang River Watershed)=1005,1115,1

Fig. 3.3.5.47. Runoff Computation Results Of RDAPS-SFM Real-Time Adjustment Coupling (Choongju Dam Watershed)=1006,1116,1

Fig. 3.3.5.48. Correlation Analysis Between RDAPS And Observed Mean Areal Precipitation Over Han River Watershed=1007,1117,1

Fig. 3.3.5.49. Correlation Analysis Between RDAPS And Observed Mean Areal Precipitation Over Soyang River Watershed=1007,1117,1

Fig. 3.3.5.51. Hourly Ensemble-Flow Simulations For Various Hydrograph Shape. The Nominal Simulation Is Shown In Bold Black Line. Shown Also Are Maximum Dispersion Measure During The Event, RmaxQ, And Dispersion Measure At Peak Flow Time, RQ(Qp), With Associat Times t, And Peak Flow Magnitude Qp(Nom).(이미지 참조)=1009,1119,1

Fig. 3.3.6.1. Real-Time Soil Moisture Variations Over Han River Subbasins. Forecast Time Is 21:09 KST, July 2003. Mean Soil Moisture Variation Is Shown In Bold Line=1012,1122,1

Fig. 3.3.6.2. As In Fig. 3.3.6.1 But For 21:21 KST, July 2003=1012,1122,1

Fig. 3.3.6.3. As In Fig. 3.3.6.1 But For 22:21 KST, July 2003=1012,1122,1

Fig. 3.3.6.4. As In Fig. 3.3.6.1 But For 23:09 KST, July 2003=1013,1123,1

Fig. 3.3.6.5. Spatial Distribution Of Soil Moisture Variation Over Han River Basin=1013,1123,1

Fig. 3.3.6.6. Hourly Flash Flood Guidance Forecast Based On Subbasin. Forecast Time Is 22:21 KST, July 2003=1014,1124,1

Fig. 3.3.6.7. Hourly Flash Flood Guidance Forecast Based On Grid Of Radar Composite Map. Forecast Time Is 22:21 KST, July 2003=1015,1125,1

Fig. 3.3.6.8. Hourly Radar Rainfall Over Han River Watershed. Observation Time Is 22:22 KST, July 2003=1016,1126,1

Fig. 3.3.6.9. Case Study Result For Potential Occurrence Of Flash Flood=1017,1127,1

Fig. 3.3.6.10. Han River Sub-Catchment Map With Flash Flood Guidance Of A 3-hour Duration Valid For The Period 15 July 2004 00-03UTC=1018,1128,1

Fig. 3.3.6.11. Sample Han River Map With Sub-Catchment RDAPS Mean Areal Precipitation Of A 3-Hour Duration For The Period 15 July 2004 00-03UTC=1019,1129,1

Fig. 3.3.6.12. Han River Sub-Catchment Map With Flash Flood Threat Of A 3-Hour Duration Valid For The Period 15 July 2004 00-03UTC=1020,1130,1

Fig. 3.3.7.3. Pre-Processing Diagram For Real-Time FFG Design=1024,1134,1

Fig. 3.3.7.4. General Weather Information System Of KMA(Source: www.kma.go.kr)=1024,1134,1

Fig. 3.3.7.6. Diagram Chart For Hydrology Information System=1029,1139,1

Fig. 3.3.7.7. Hydrometeorological Data Link Structure For FFG Computation=1029,1139,1

Fig. 3.3.7.10. Display Result With Radar Mean Areal Precipitation For The KoFFG=1033,1143,1

Fig. 3.3.7.11. Display Result With Flash Flood Guidance For The KoFFG=1033,1143,1

Fig. 3.3.7.12. Display Result With RDAPS Mean Areal Precipitation=1034,1144,1

Fig. 3.3.7.13. Display Result With Future Flash Flood Threat(FFFT)=1034,1144,1

Fig. 6.3.1.1. RFCs In USA=1062,1172,1

Fig. 6.3.1.2. Hydrologic Forecast Procedure Of RFC=1063,1173,1

Fig. 6.3.1.3. General Components For NWSRFS=1064,1174,1

Fig. 6.3.1.4. HPC's QPF Information During 6 Hours=1065,1175,1

Fig. 6.3.1.5. HPC's QPF Information During 24 Hours=1065,1175,1

Fig. 6.3.1.7. RFC's Significant River Flood Outlook For 5 Days=1067,1177,1

Fig. 6.3.1.8. Mid-Term Forecast For Dam Inflow=1068,1178,1

Fig. 6.3.1.9. Computational Procedure For ESP Forecast Method=1069,1179,1

Fig. 6.3.1.10. Long-Term Probability Forecast Using ESP Method=1069,1179,1

Fig. 6.3.2.1. Management Region Of RSMG's Program=1070,1180,1

Fig. 6.3.2.4. NEXRAD For Atmospheric Watching System=1074,1184,1

Fig. 6.3.2.8. Examples Of Trial Area And Exchange Information For ET Estimation=1077,1187,1

Fig. 6.3.2.9. Example For Stream Forecast Results Of AHPS=1078,1188,1

Fig. 6.3.2.11. 3 Monthly Exceedance Probability For River Flow Of AHPS=1080,1190,1

Fig. 6.3.2.12. User Observed Station Of North-East Region=1080,1190,1

Fig. 6.3.2.17. Water Year Report(AF, 2000)=1083,1193,1

Fig. 6.3.2.18. Example For Reservoir Operation Of USBR=1083,1193,1

Fig. 6.3.3.1. Locations Of TVA Reservoirs And Power Plants=1084,1194,1

Fig. 6.3.3.2. Flowchart For Daily Dam Discharge Of TVA=1085,1195,1

Fig. 6.3.3.3. Observed Water Level Of Great Falls Dam=1085,1195,1

Fig. 6.3.3.4. Dam Discharge Of Great Falls Dam=1086,1196,1

Fig. 6.3.3.5. Observed Precipitation Of TVA=1086,1196,1

Fig. 6.3.3.6. Predicted Water Level Of Great Falls Dam=1088,1198,1

Fig. 6.3.4.1. Flowchart For Water Level Operation In Japan=1088,1198,1

Fig. 6.3.4.7. Schematic Diagram For Precipitation Forecast=1091,1201,1

Fig. 6.3.4.8. Precipitation Forecast System For Typhoon And Low Pressure=1091,1201,1

Fig. 6.3.4.9. Dam Storage And Flood Forecast System=1092,1202,1

Fig. 6.3.4.10. Estimated Precipitation Using Radar=1092,1202,1

Fig. 6.3.4.11. Information For Precipitation And Water Level In Gohoo City=1093,1203,1

Fig. 6.3.4.12. Example For Draught Information In Japan=1093,1203,1