4.7 Article

Early assessment of Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement over China

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
卷 176, 期 -, 页码 121-133

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.02.020

关键词

Global Precipitation Measurement; Remote sensing; Satellite; Precipitation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41371419, 91437214, 41361022]
  2. Special program for International Science & Technology Cooperation [2010DFA92720-04]
  3. One Thousand Youth Talents Plan of China [374231001]
  4. Hydrometeorology and Remote Sensing (HyDROS) Laboratory at The University of Oklahoma, OK, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two post-real time precipitation products from the Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (IMERG) are systematically evaluated over China with China daily Precipitation Analysis Product (CPAP) as reference. The IMERG products include the gauge-corrected IMERG product (IMERG_Cal) and the version of IMERG without direct gauge correction (IMERG_Uncal). The post-research TRMM Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis version 7 (TMPA-3B42V7) is also evaluated concurrently with IMERG for better perspective. In order to be consistent with CPAP, the evaluation and comparison of selected products are performed at 0.25 degrees and daily resolutions from 12 March 2014 through 28 February 2015. The results show that: Both IMERG and 3B42V7 show similar performances. Compared to IMERG_Uncal, IMERG_Cal shows significant improvement in overall and conditional bias and in the correlation coefficient. Both IMERG_Cal and IMERG_Uncal perform relatively poor in winter and over-detect slight precipitation events in northwestern China. As an early validation of the GPM-era IMERG products that inherit the TRMM-era global satellite precipitation products, these findings will provide useful feedbacks and insights for algorithm developers and data users over China and beyond. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据