The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Adjustment of global gridded precipitation for systematic bias
Abstract
Systematic biases in gauge‐based measurement of precipitation can be substantial. Of the sources of bias, wind‐induced undercatch of solid precipitation is by far the largest. A methodology for producing gridded mean monthly catch ratios (CRs) for the adjustment of wind‐induced undercatch and wetting losses is developed, which is suitable for application to continental or global gridded precipitation products. The adjustments for wind‐induced solid precipitation were estimated using gauge type‐specific regression equations from the recent World Meteorological Organization Solid Precipitation Measurement Intercomparison. Wind‐induced undercatch of liquid precipitation and wetting losses were estimated using methods employed in previous global bias adjustment efforts. Due to the unique nature of Canada's precipitation measurement network, the Canadian adjustments were determined using more detailed information than for the rest of the domain, and are therefore expected to be more reliable. The gridded gauge adjustment products are designed to be applicable both to climatological estimates and to individual years during the 1979 through 1998 reference period. Application of the CRs to an existing precipitation product yielded an increase in mean annual global terrestrial precipitation of 11.7%. As compared with recent (but more localized) studies that used a similar method to account for wind‐induced catch deficiencies, our estimates of wind‐induced undercatch are 1.6–7.9% higher on a mean annual basis. Compared to a previous global precipitation bias adjustment effort, our adjusted data set results on average in slightly greater warm season and lower cold season precipitation increases, greater precipitation increases over North America, and lower precipitation increases over Eurasia.
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
Westra, S., Fowler, H. J., Evans, J. P., Alexander, L. V., Berg, P., Johnson, F., Kendon, E. J., Lenderink, G., & Roberts, N. M. (2014) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1002/2014rg000464 · Cited by 1,533
RegCM4: model description and preliminary tests over multiple CORDEX domains
Giorgi, F., Coppola, E., Solmon, F., Mariotti, L., Sylla, M., Bi, X., Elguindi, N., Diro, G., Nair, V, Giuliani, G., et al. (2012) · Climate Research · doi:10.3354/cr01018 · Cited by 1,456
Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity
Moritz, M. A., Parisien, M.-A., Batllori, E., Krawchuk, M. A., Van Dorn, J., Ganz, D. J., & Hayhoe, K. (2012) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es11-00345.1 · Cited by 959
The European mountain cryosphere: a review of its current state, trends, and future challenges
Beniston, M., Farinotti, D., Stoffel, M., Andreassen, L. M., Coppola, E., Eckert, N., Fantini, A., Giacona, F., Hauck, C., Huss, M., et al. (2018) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-12-759-2018 · Cited by 734
Müller Schmied, H., Eisner, S., Franz, D., Wattenbach, M., Portmann, F. T., Flörke, M., & Döll, P. (2014) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-18-3511-2014 · Cited by 415
Metadata
- Authors
- Adam, J. C., & Lettenmaier, D. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- D9
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2028554047
- Cited by
- 458
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.82
- 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: Adjustment of global gridded precipitation for systematic bias. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2002jd002499
- The paper
- Adam, J. C., & Lettenmaier, D. P. (2003). Adjustment of global gridded precipitation for systematic bias. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd002499
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.