4.5 Article

Evaluation of CMPA precipitation estimate in the evolution of typhoon-related storm rainfall in Guangdong, China

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROINFORMATICS
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 1055-1068

Publisher

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/hydro.2016.241

Keywords

CMPA; evaluation; extreme rainfall; typhoon

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [41371404, 51379224, 41301419]
  2. Water Resource Science and Technology Innovation Program of Guangdong Province [2016-19]
  3. Open Foundation of the State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology [Y371163]
  4. Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The merged precipitation data of Climate Prediction Center Morphing Technique and gauge observations (CMPA) generated for continental China has relatively high spatial and temporal resolution (hourly and 0.1 W), while few studies have applied it to investigate the typhoon-related extreme rainfall. This study evaluates the CMPA estimate in quantifying the typhoon-related extreme rainfall using a dense rain gauge network in Guangdong Province, China. The results show that the event-total precipitation from CMPA is generally in agreement with gauges by relative bias (RB) of 2.62, 10.74 and 0.63% and correlation coefficients (CCs) of 0.76, 0.86 and 0.91 for typhoon Utor, Usagi and Linfa events, respectively. At the hourly scale, CMPA underestimates the occurrence of light rain (< 1 mm/h) and heavy rain (> 16 mm/h), while overestimates the occurrence of moderate rain. CMPA shows high probability of detection (POD = 0.93), relatively large false alarm ratio (FAR 0.22) and small missing ratio (0.07). CMPA captures the spatial patterns of typhoon-related rain depth, and is in agreement with the spatiotemporal evolution of hourly gauge observations by CC from 0.93 to 0.99. In addition, cautiousness should be taken when applying it in hydrologic modeling for flooding forecasting since CMPA underestimates heavy rain (> 16 mm/h).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available