Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Intercomparison and Validation of High-Resolution Satellite Precipitation Estimates with 3-Hourly Gauge Data

Sapiano, M. R. P., Arkin, P. A.·2009·Journal of Hydrometeorology

Abstract

The last several years have seen the development of a number of new satellite-derived, globally complete, high-resolution precipitation products with a spatial resolution of at least 0.25° and a temporal resolution of at least 3-hourly. These products generally merge geostationary infrared data and polar-orbiting passive microwave data to take advantage of the frequent sampling of the infrared and the superior quality of the microwave. The Program to Evaluate High Resolution Precipitation Products (PEHRPP) was established to evaluate and intercompare these datasets at a variety of spatial and temporal resolutions with the intent of guiding dataset developers and informing the user community regarding the error characteristics of the products. As part of this project, the authors have performed a subdaily intercomparison of five high-resolution datasets [Climate Prediction Center morphing (CMORPH) technique; Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA); Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) blended technique; National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service Hydro-Estimator; and Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN)] with existing subdaily gauge data over the United States and the Pacific Ocean. Results show that these data are effective at representing high-resolution precipitation, with correlations against 3-hourly gauge data as high as 0.7 for CMORPH, which had the highest correlations with the validation data. Biases are relatively high for most of the datasets over land (apart from the TMPA, which is gauge adjusted) and ocean, with a general tendency to overestimate warm season rainfall over the United States and to underestimate rainfall over the tropical Pacific Ocean. Additionally, all the products studied faithfully resolve the diurnal cycle of precipitation when compared with the validation 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/2008jhm1052.1

Cites

27 of 27 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 27 references

Cited by

See all 351

Metadata

Authors
Sapiano, M. R. P., & Arkin, P. A.
Venue
Journal of Hydrometeorology
Published
2009-02-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
149-166
ISSN
  • 1525-7541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-755X
OpenAlex
W2082872569
Cited by
351
References
27
FWCI
10.57
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: An Intercomparison and Validation of High-Resolution Satellite Precipitation Estimates with 3-Hourly Gauge Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/2008jhm1052.1
The paper
Sapiano, M. R. P., & Arkin, P. A. (2009). An Intercomparison and Validation of High-Resolution Satellite Precipitation Estimates with 3-Hourly Gauge Data. Journal of Hydrometeorology. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008jhm1052.1

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.