4.7 Article

On the use of indices to study extreme precipitation on sub-daily and daily timescales

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 14, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab51b6

Keywords

climate indices; precipitation extremes; observations

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes [CE170100023]
  2. INTENSE project through European Research Council [ERC-2013-CoG-617329]
  3. Wolfson Foundation
  4. Royal Society [WM140025]
  5. ARC [DP160103439]
  6. Economy, Industry and Competitiveness Spanish Ministry [RYC-2017-22964]
  7. Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme - BEIS
  8. Defra
  9. Copernicus Climate Change Service under Service Contract [C3S 311a Lot2]
  10. DROUGHT-HEAT project - European Research Council [FP7-IDEAS-ERC-617518]
  11. Ministry of Earth Sciences, Govt. of India [MOES/PAMC/HC/41/2013-PC-II]
  12. NERC [NE/S017348/1, NE/R01079X/1, NE/K008781/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While there are obstacles to the exchange of long-term high temporal resolution precipitation data, there have been fewer barriers to the exchange of so-called 'indices'. These are derived from daily and sub-daily data and measure aspects of precipitation frequency, duration and intensity that could be used for the study of extremes. This paper outlines the history of the rationale and use of these indices, the types of indices that are frequently used and the advantages and pitfalls in analysing them. Moving forward, satellite precipitation products are now showing the potential to provide global climate indices to supplement existing products using longer-term in situ gauge records but we suggest that to advance this area differences between data products, limitations in satellite-based estimation processes, and the inherent challenges of scale need to be better understood.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available