Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 431

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Component analysis of errors in satellite‐based precipitation estimates

Tian, Yudong, Peters‐Lidard, Christa D., Eylander, John B., Joyce, Robert J., Huffman, George J., Adler, Robert F., Hsu, Kuo‐lin, Turk, F. Joseph, Garcia, Matthew, Zeng, Jing·2009·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

Satellite‐based precipitation estimates have great potential for a wide range of critical applications, but their error characteristics need to be examined and understood. In this study, six (6) high‐resolution, satellite‐based precipitation data sets are evaluated over the contiguous United States against a gauge‐based product. An error decomposition scheme is devised to separate the errors into three independent components, hit bias, missed precipitation, and false precipitation, to better track the error sources associated with the satellite retrieval processes. Our analysis reveals the following. (1) The three components for each product are all substantial, with large spatial and temporal variations. (2) The amplitude of individual components sometimes is larger than that of the total errors. In such cases, the smaller total errors are resulting from the three components canceling one another. (3) All the products detected strong precipitation (>40 mm/d) well, but with various biases. They tend to overestimate in summer and underestimate in winter, by as much as 50% in either season, and they all miss a significant amount of light precipitation (<10 mm/d), up to 40%. (4) Hit bias and missed precipitation are the two leading error sources. In summer, positive hit bias, up to 50%, dominates the total errors for most products. (5) In winter, missed precipitation over mountainous regions and the northeast, presumably snowfall, poses a common challenge to all the data sets. On the basis of the findings, we recommend that future efforts focus on reducing hit bias, adding snowfall retrievals, and improving methods for combining gauge and satellite data. Strategies for future studies to establish better links between the errors in the end products and the upstream data sources are also proposed.

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 · 10.1029/2009jd011949

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.

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

Cited by

See all 431

Metadata

Authors
Tian, Y., Peters‐Lidard, C. D., Eylander, J. B., Joyce, R. J., Huffman, G. J., Adler, R. F., Hsu, K., Turk, F. J., Garcia, M., & Zeng, J.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2009-12-16
Volume
114
Issue
D24
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975786666
Cited by
431
References
0
FWCI
4.53
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: Component analysis of errors in satellite‐based precipitation estimates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2009jd011949
The paper
Tian, Y., Peters‐Lidard, C. D., Eylander, J. B., Joyce, R. J., Huffman, G. J., Adler, R. F., Hsu, K., Turk, F. J., Garcia, M., & Zeng, J. (2009). Component analysis of errors in satellite‐based precipitation estimates. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd011949

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.