Explore the vast range of titles available.

Retrievals of falling snow from space-based observations represent key inputs for understanding and linking Earth’s atmospheric, hydrological, and energy cycles. This work quantifies and investigates causes of differences among the first stable falling snow retrieval products from the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Core Observatory satellite and CloudSat’s Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) falling snow product. An important part of this analysis details the challenges associated with comparing the various GPM and CloudSat snow estimates arising from different snow–rain classification methods, orbits, resolutions, sampling, instrument specifications, and algorithm assumptions. After equalizing snow–rain classification methodologies and limiting latitudinal extent, CPR observes nearly 10 (3) times the occurrence (accumulation) of falling snow as GPM’s Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR). The occurrence disparity is substantially reduced if CloudSat pixels are averaged to simulate DPR radar pixels and CPR observations are truncated below the 8-dBZ reflectivity threshold. However, even though the truncated CPR- and DPR-based data have similar falling snow occurrences, average snowfall rate from the truncated CPR record remains significantly higher (43%) than the DPR, indicating that retrieval assumptions (microphysics and snow scattering properties) are quite different. Diagnostic reflectivity (Z)–snow rate (S) relationships were therefore developed at Ku and W band using the same snow scattering properties and particle size distributions in a final effort to minimize algorithm differences. CPR–DPR snowfall amount differences were reduced to ~16% after adopting this diagnostic Z–S approach.

This study attempts to assess the validity of the Integrated Multisatellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (IMERG) products across Iran. Six IMERG precipitation products (IPPs) including early, late, and final runs for versions 05 and 06 were compared with precipitation data from 76 synoptic stations on a daily scale for the period from June 2014 to June 2018. According to the results, V05 performed better than V06, particularly in early and late runs. The IPPs overestimate precipitation ranging from 5% to 32%; however, IPPs tended to underestimate (overestimate) the amount of precipitation for wet (dry) areas and precipitation classes higher than 5 mm day−1 (less than 5 mm day−1). The probability of detection (POD) in IPPs was almost similar (with a median equal to 0.60), whereas other categorical validation metrics like false alarm ratio (FAR) improved in the final run. Our assessments revealed that the dependency of IPPs to the elevation was low, while the error characteristics of IPPs were strongly dependent on the climate and precipitation intensity. For instance, the systematic error varied between less than 12% in dry regions to more than 60% in wet regions. Also, according to modified Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) and relative bias (RBias), the performance of IPPs in winter with the highest KGE (ranging from 0.47 to 0.63) and lowest RBias (ranging from 0% to 16%) was better than other seasons. Further improvement is recommended in the satellite sensors and the precipitation retrieval algorithms to achieve a reliable precipitation source.

Satellite and model precipitation such as the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) data are valuable in hydrometeorological applications. This study investigates the performance of various satellite and model precipitation products in Taiwan from 2015 to 2017, including data derived from the Integrated Multisatellite Retrievals for GPM Early and Final Runs (IMERG_E and IMERG_F), Global Satellite Mapping of Precipitation in near–real time (GSMaP_NRT), and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model. We assess these products by comparing them against data collected from 304 surface stations and gauge-based gridded data. Our assessment emphasizes factors influential in precipitation estimation, such as season, temperature, elevation, and extreme event. Further, we assess the hydrological response to each precipitation product via continuous flow simulation in two selected watersheds. The results indicate that the performance of these precipitation products is subject to seasonal and regional variations. The satellite products (i.e., IMERG and GSMaP) perform better than the model (i.e., WRF) in the warm season and vice versa in the cold season, most apparently in northern Taiwan. For selected extreme events, WRF can simulate better rainfall amount and distribution. The seasonal and regional variations in precipitation estimation are also reflected in flow simulations: IMERG in general produces the most rational flow simulation, GSMaP tends to overestimate and be least useful for hydrological applications, while WRF simulates high flows that show accurate time to the peak flows and are better in the southern watershed.

A key strategy in obtaining complete global coverage of high-resolution precipitation is to combine observations from multiple fields, such as the intermittent passive microwave observations, precipitation propagated in time using motion vectors, and geosynchronous infrared observations. These separate precipitation fields can be combined through weighted averaging, which produces estimates that are generally superior to the individual parent fields. However, the process of averaging changes the distribution of the precipitation values, leading to an increase in precipitating area and a decrease in the values of high precipitation rates, a phenomenon observed in IMERG. To mitigate this issue, we introduce a new scheme called SHARPEN (Scheme for Histogram Adjustment with Ranked Precipitation Estimates in the Neighborhood), which recovers the distribution of the averaged precipitation field based on the idea of quantile mapping applied to the local environment. When implemented in IMERG, precipitation estimates from SHARPEN exhibit a distribution that resembles that of the original instantaneous observations, with matching precipitating area and peak precipitation rates. Case studies demonstrate its improved ability in bridging between the parent precipitation fields. Evaluation against ground observations reveals a distinct improvement in precipitation detection skill, but also a slightly reduced correlation likely because of a sharper precipitation field. The increased computational demand of SHARPEN can be mitigated by striding over multiple grid boxes, which has only marginal impacts on the accuracy of the estimates. SHARPEN can be applied to any precipitation algorithm that produces an average from multiple input precipitation fields and is being considered for implementation in IMERG V07.

This study evaluates a machine learning–based precipitation ensemble technique (MLPET) over three mountainous tropical regions. The technique, based on quantile regression forests, integrates global satellite precipitation datasets from CMORPH, PERSIANN, GSMaP (V6), and 3B42 (V7) and an atmospheric reanalysis precipitation product (EI_GPCC) with daily soil moisture, specific humidity, and terrain elevation datasets. The complex terrain study areas include the Peruvian and Colombian Andes in South America and the Blue Nile in East Africa. Evaluation is performed at a daily time scale and 0.25° spatial resolution based on 13 years (2000–12) of reference rainfall data derived from dense in situ rain gauge networks. The technique is evaluated using K-fold, separately in each region, and leave-one-region-out validation experiments. Comparison of MLPET with the individual satellite and reanalysis precipitation datasets used for the blending and the recent Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation (MSWEP) global precipitation product exhibited improved systematic and random error statistics for all regions. In addition, it is shown that observations are encapsulated well within the ensemble envelope generated by the blending technique.

The Integrated Multisatellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (IMERG) is a global precipitation product that uses precipitation retrievals from the virtual constellation of satellites with passive microwave (PMW) sensors, as available. In the absence of PMW observations, IMERG uses a Kalman filter scheme to morph precipitation from one PMW observation to the next. In this study, an analysis of convective systems observed during the Convective Process Experiment (CPEX) suggests that IMERG precipitation depends more strongly on the availability of PMW observations than previously suspected. Following this evidence, we explore systematic biases in IMERG through bulk statistics. In two CPEX case studies, cloud photographs, pilot’s radar, and infrared imagery suggest that IMERG represents the spatial extent of precipitation relatively well when there is a PMW observation but sometimes produces spurious precipitation areas in the absence of PMW observations. Also, considering an observed convective system as a precipitation object in IMERG, the maximum rain rate peaked during PMW overpasses, with lower values between them. Bulk statistics reveal that these biases occur throughout IMERG Version 06. We find that locations and times without PMW observations have a higher frequency of light precipitation rates and a lower frequency of heavy precipitation rates due to retrieval artifacts. These results reveal deficiencies in the IMERG Kalman filter scheme, which have led to the development of the Scheme for Histogram Adjustment with Ranked Precipitation Estimates in the Neighborhood (SHARPEN; described in a companion paper) that will be applied in the next version of IMERG.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have a long and successful history of weather radar research. The NOAA ground-based radars—WSR-88D network—provide nationwide precipitation observations and estimates with advanced polarimetric capability. As a counterpart, the NASA–JAXA spaceborne radar—the Global Precipitation Measurement Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar (GPM DPR)—has global coverage and higher vertical resolution than ground-based radars. While significant advances from both NOAA’s WSR-88D network and NASA–JAXA’s spaceborne radar DPR have been made, no systematic comparisons between the WSR-88D network and the DPR have been done. This study for the first time generates nationwide comprehensive comparisons at 136 WSR-88D radar sites from 2014 to 2020. Systematic differences in reflectivity are found, with ground radar reflectivity on average 2.4 dB smaller than that of the DPR (DPR version 6). This research found the discrepancies between WSR-88D and DPR arise from different calibration standards, signal attenuation correction, and differences in the ground and spaceborne scattering volumes. The recently updated DPR version 7 product improves rain detection and attenuation corrections, effectively reducing the overall average WSR-88D and DPR reflectivity differences to 1.0 dB. The goal of this study is to examine the systematic differences of radar reflectivity between the NOAA WSR-88D network and the NASA–JAXA DPR and to draw attention to radar-application users in recognizing their differences. Further investigation into understanding and alleviating the systematic bias between the two platforms is needed.

High-resolution datasets offer the potential to improve our understanding of spatial and temporal precipitation patterns and storm structures. The goal of this study is to evaluate the similarities and differences of object-based storm characteristics as observed using space- or land-based sensors. The Method of Object-based Diagnostic Evaluation (MODE) Time Domain (MTD) is used to identify and track storm objects in two high-resolution merged datasets: the Integrated Multisatellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (IMERG) final product V06B and gauge-corrected ground-radar-based Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor (MRMS) quantitative precipitation estimations. Characteristics associated with landfalling hurricanes were also examined as a separate category of storm. The results reveal that IMERG and MRMS agree reasonably well across many object-based storm characteristics. However, there are some discrepancies that are statistically significant. MRMSstorms are more concentrated, with smaller areas and higher peak intensities, which implies higher flash flood risks associated with the storms. On the other hand, IMERG storms can travel longer distances with a higher volume of precipitation, which implies higher risk of riverine flooding. Agreement between the datasets is higher for faster-moving hurricanes in terms of the averaged intensity. Finally, MRMS indicates a higher average precipitation intensity during the hurricane’s lifetime. However, in non-hurricanes, the opposite result was observed. This is likely related to MRMShaving higher resolution; monitoring the hurricanes from many viewing angles, leading to different signal saturation properties compared to IMERG; and/or the dominance of droplet aggregation effects over evaporation effects at lower altitudes.

The Ka–Ku Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) and the Microwave Imager on board the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission core satellite have been collecting data for more than 3 years, providing precipitation products over the globe, including oceans and remote areas where ground-based precipitation measurements are not available. The main objective of this work is to validate the GPM-DPR products over a key climatic region with complex orography such as the Italian territory. The performances of the DPR precipitation rate products are evaluated over an 18-month period (July 2015–December 2016) using both radar and rain gauge data. The ground reference network is composed of 22 weather radars and more than 3000 rain gauges. DPR dual-frequency products generally show better performance with respect to the single-frequency (i.e., Ka- or Ku-band only) products, especially when ground radar data are taken as reference. A sensitivity analysis with respect to season and rainfall intensity is also carried out. It was found that the normal scan (NS) product outperforms the high-sensitivity scan (HS) and matched scan (MS) during the summer season. A deeper analysis is carried out to investigate the larger discrepancies between the DPR-NS product and ground reference data. The most relevant improvement of the DPR products’ performance was found by limiting the comparison to the upscaled radar data with a higher quality index. The resulting scores in comparison with ground radars are mean error (ME) = −0.44 mm h−1, RMSE = 3.57 mm h−1, and fractional standard error (FSE) = 142%, with the POD = 65% and FAR = 1% for rainfall above 0.5 mm h−1.

This study assesses the level-2 precipitation estimates from 10 radiometers relative to Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Ku-band precipitation radar (KuPR) in two parts. First, nine sensors—four imagers [Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) and three Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounders (SSMISs)] and five sounders [Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder (ATMS) and four Microwave Humidity Sounders (MHSs)]—are evaluated over the 65°S–65°N region. Over ocean, imagers outperform sounders, primarily due to the usage of low-frequency channels. Furthermore, AMSR2 is clearly superior to SSMISs, likely due to the finer footprint size. Over land all sensors perform similarly except the noticeably worse performance from ATMS and SSMIS-F17. Second, we include the Sondeur Atmospherique du Profil d’Humidite Intertropicale par Radiometrie (SAPHIR) into the evaluation process, contrasting it against other sensors in the SAPHIR latitudes (30°S–30°N). SAPHIR has a slightly worse detection capability than other sounders over ocean but comparable detection performance to MHSs over land. The intensity estimates from SAPHIR show a larger normalized root-mean-square-error over both land and ocean, likely because only 183.3-GHz channels are available. Currently, imagers are preferred to sounders when level-2 estimates are incorporated into level-3 products. Our results suggest a sensor-specific priority order. Over ocean, this study indicates a priority order of AMSR2, SSMISs, MHSs and ATMS, and SAPHIR. Over land, SSMIS-F17, ATMS and SAPHIR should be given a lower priority than the other sensors.