4.7 Article

Investigating the similarity of satellite rainfall error metrics as a function of Koppen climate classification

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
Volume 104, Issue -, Pages 182-192

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.10.006

Keywords

Precipitation; Satellite; Uncertainty; Climatology; Similarity TRMM and GPM

Funding

  1. NASA [NNX08AR32G]
  2. NASA [95493, NNX08AR32G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study addressed the question: How much similarity exists in uncertainty of space-borne precipitation products for similar Koppen climate zones in different and distant landmasses? Various metrics of satellite rainfall uncertainty were identified using a six year (2002-2007) archive of NASA's TRMM Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) data product called 3B42V6 for two large distant landmasses that share many similar Koppen climate zones: 1) United States and 2) Australia. The level of quantitative similarity in error metrics for the same Koppen climate zones was then investigated. It was found that the bias and root mean squared error exhibited very close levels of similarity for similar Koppen climate zones in the US and Australia. However, similar inferences could not be drawn for other (higher-ordered) error metrics such as Probability of Detection (POD). The contrasting nature of the ground validation (GV) data (i.e., NEXRAD-radar in US and point gauge in Australia) for characterizing uncertainty may be one of the reasons for this observed lack of similarity. Using a dense gauge network of 42 gauges over a standard 3B42V6 grid box (similar to 0.25 degrees) as a ground validation benchmark, the dependence of uncertainty as a function of gauge density was quantified. These relationships were then cast in the context of our Koppen climate similarity experiment to identify the minimum level of gauge density that would be needed to resolve more accurately the actual level of similarity of error metrics for distant landmasses. (C) 2011 Elsevier BM. All rights reserved.

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