4.7 Article

Using Satellite Error Modeling to Improve GPM-Level 3 Rainfall Estimates over the Central Amazon Region

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs10020336

Keywords

global precipitation measurement; IMERG; PUSH; error model; validation; Amazon

Funding

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) Brazil
  2. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) Brazil
  3. CAPES [6836-15-1]
  4. CHUVA Project (FAPESP Grant) [2009/15235-8]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to assess the characteristics and uncertainty of Integrated Multisatellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) (IMERG) Level 3 rainfall estimates and to improve those estimates using an error model over the central Amazon region. The S-band Amazon Protection National System (SIPAM) radar is used as reference and the Precipitation Uncertainties for Satellite Hydrology (PUSH) framework is adopted to characterize uncertainties associated with the satellite precipitation product. PUSH is calibrated and validated for the study region and takes into account factors like seasonality and surface type (i.e., land and river). Results demonstrated that the PUSH model is suitable for characterizing errors in the IMERG algorithm when compared with S-band SIPAM radar estimates. PUSH could efficiently predict the satellite rainfall error distribution in terms of spatial and intensity distribution. However, an underestimation (overestimation) of light satellite rain rates was observed during the dry (wet) period, mainly over rivers. Although the estimated error showed a lower standard deviation than the observed error, the correlation between satellite and radar rainfall was high and the systematic error was well captured along the Negro, Solimoes, and Amazon rivers, especially during the wet season.

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