4.5 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROINFORMATICS
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 1055-1068

出版社

IWA PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.2166/hydro.2016.241

关键词

CMPA; evaluation; extreme rainfall; typhoon

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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).

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

4.5
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