The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of bias adjustment and rain gauge data quality control on radar rainfall estimation
Abstract
Thirty major storms that passed over Goodwin Creek, a small research watershed in northern Mississippi, were analyzed to assess the bias between radar rainfall estimates at rain gauge locations and the gauge amounts. These storms, each contributing at least 10 mm of storm total rainfall, accumulated approximately 785 mm of rain, which corresponds to about half the average annual rainfall amount for the area. The focus of this study was to demonstrate the importance of (1) bias adjustment of the radar rainfall estimates and (2) the quality control of the rain gauge data used for bias adjustment. The analyses are based on Memphis Weather Surveillance Radar—1988 Doppler radar data, tipping‐bucket rain gauge data, and raindrop spectra information collected within the Goodwin Creek catchment. Because of measurement and rainfall estimation uncertainties, radar observations are often combined with rain gauge data to obtain the most accurate rainfall estimates. Rain gauge data, however, are subject to characteristic error sources: for Goodwin Creek, malfunctioning of the tipping‐bucket rain gauges was frequently caused by biological and mechanical fouling, and human interference. Therefore careful quality control of the rain gauge data is crucial, and only good quality rain gauge information should be used for adjusting radar rainfall estimates. By using high‐quality gauge data and storm‐based bias adjustment, we achieved radar rainfall estimates with root‐mean‐square errors (RMSE) of approximately 10% for storm total rainfall accumulations of 30 mm or more. Differences resulting from radar data processing scenarios were found to be small compared to the effect caused by bias adjustment and using high‐quality rain gauge data.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., & Freer, J. (2012) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.9384 · Cited by 522
Di Luzio, M., Johnson, G. L., Daly, C., Eischeid, J. K., & Arnold, J. G. (2008) · Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · doi:10.1175/2007jamc1356.1 · Cited by 271
Challenges in obtaining reliable measurements of point rainfall
Sieck, L. C., Burges, S. J., & Steiner, M. (2007) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2005wr004519 · Cited by 196
Self-citationQi, Y., Martinaitis, S., Zhang, J., & Cocks, S. (2016) · Journal of Hydrometeorology · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-15-0188.1 · Cited by 73
Understanding Winter Precipitation Impacts on Automated Gauge Observations within a Real-Time System
Martinaitis, S. M., Cocks, S. B., Qi, Y., Kaney, B. T., Zhang, J., & Howard, K. (2015) · Journal of Hydrometeorology · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-15-0020.1 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Steiner, M., Smith, J. A., Burges, S. J., Alonso, C. V., & Darden, R. W.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1999-08
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2487-2503
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2002757003
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.50
- 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: Effect of bias adjustment and rain gauge data quality control on radar rainfall estimation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/1999wr900142
- The paper
- Steiner, M., Smith, J. A., Burges, S. J., Alonso, C. V., & Darden, R. W. (1999). Effect of bias adjustment and rain gauge data quality control on radar rainfall estimation. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999wr900142
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.