The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Component analysis of errors in satellite‐based precipitation estimates
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.
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
MSWEP V2 Global 3-Hourly 0.1° Precipitation: Methodology and Quantitative Assessment
Beck, H. E., Wood, E. F., Pan, M., Fisher, C. K., Miralles, D. G., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., McVicar, T. R., & Adler, R. F. (2019) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-17-0138.1 · Cited by 1,411
Self-citationOcean salinities reveal strong global water cycle intensification during 1950 to 2000.
Durack, P. J., Wijffels, S. E., & Matear, R. J. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1212222 · Cited by 1,070
The hydrology of the humid tropics
Wohl, E., Barros, A., Brunsell, N., Chappell, N. A., Coe, M., Giambelluca, T., Goldsmith, S., Harmon, R., Hendrickx, J. M. H., Juvik, J., et al. (2012) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1556 · Cited by 353
Evaluation of satellite-retrieved extreme precipitation rates across the central United States
AghaKouchak, A., Behrangi, A., Sorooshian, S., Hsu, K., & Amitai, E. (2011) · Journal of Geophysical Research · doi:10.1029/2010jd014741 · Cited by 323
Self-citationGridded Ensemble Precipitation and Temperature Estimates for the Contiguous United States
Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Craig, J., Nijssen, B., Wood, A., Gutmann, E., Mizukami, N., Brekke, L., & Arnold, J. R. (2015) · Journal of Hydrometeorology · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-15-0026.1 · Cited by 184
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
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- 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.