Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 194

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Uncertainties in remotely sensed precipitation data over Africa

Awange, J.L., Ferreira, V.G., Forootan, E., Khandu, Andam-Akorful, S.A., Agutu, N.O., He, X.F.·2016·International Journal of Climatology

Abstract

Quantifying the amount of precipitation and its uncertainty is a challenging task all over the world, particularly over the African continent, where rain gauge (RG) networks are poorly distributed. In recent decades, several satellite remote sensing (SRS)-based precipitation products have become available with reasonable spatial and temporal resolutions to be applied in hydrological and climate studies. However, uncertainties of these products over Africa are largely unknown. In this study, the generalized ‘three-cornered-hat’ (TCH) method is applied to estimate uncertainties of gridded precipitation products over the entire African continent, without being dependent to the choice of a reference dataset. Six widely used SRS-based precipitation products (at monthly scales) were evaluated over the entire continent during the period of 2003–2010. The TCH results are further compared to those of the classical evaluation using the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) over entire Africa, as well as to the RG observations over the Greater Horn of Africa (GHA). Overall, for the study period (2003–2010), the TCH results indicate that the RG-merged products contain smaller error amplitudes compared to the satellite-only products, consistent with the GPCC-based evaluation. A multiple comparison procedure ranking, which was applied based on signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), indicated that PERSIANN contains the highest SNR and thus suitable over most of Africa, followed by ARCv2, TRMM, CMORPH, TAMSAT, and GSMaP. To extract the main spatio-temporal variability of rainfall over Africa, complex empirical orthogonal function technique was applied, from which the extracted patterns of GPCC, TRMM, PERSIANN, and ARCv2 were found to be similar but different from those of TAMSAT, CMORPH, and GSMaP. Finally, the TCH and RG-based validation methods were found to provide similar evaluations for the SRS-only products (CMORPH and GSMaP) over GHA, with CMORPH emerging to be the most suitable product, consistent with previous studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/joc.4346

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 194

Metadata

Authors
Awange, J. L., Ferreira, V. G., Forootan, E., Khandu, Andam-Akorful, S. A., Agutu, N. O., & He, X. F.
Venue
International Journal of Climatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04-21
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
303-323
ISSN
0899-8418 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149811115
Cited by
194
References
1
FWCI
9.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Uncertainties in remotely sensed precipitation data over Africa. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/joc.4346
The paper
Awange, J. L., Ferreira, V. G., Forootan, E., Khandu, Andam-Akorful, S. A., Agutu, N. O., & He, X. F. (2016). Uncertainties in remotely sensed precipitation data over Africa. International Journal of Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4346

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.