The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Near-Real-Time Precipitation Estimates from Satellite Observations and Numerical Models
Abstract
An increasing number of satellite-based rainfall products are now available in near–real time over the Internet to help meet the needs of weather forecasters and climate scientists, as well as a wide range of decision makers, including hydrologists, agriculturalists, emergency managers, and industrialists. Many of these satellite products are so newly developed that a comprehensive evaluation has not yet been undertaken. This article provides potential users of short-interval satellite rainfall estimates with information on the accuracy of such estimates. Since late 2002 the authors have been performing daily validation and intercomparisons of several operational satellite rainfall retrieval algorithms over Australia, the United States, and northwestern Europe. Short-range quantitative precipitation forecasts from four numerical weather prediction (NWP) models are also included for comparison. Synthesis of four years of daily rainfall validation results shows that the satellite-derived estimates of precipitation occurrence, amount, and intensity are most accurate during the warm season and at lower latitudes, where the rainfall is primarily convective in nature. In contrast, the NWP models perform better than the satellite estimates during the cool season when non-convective precipitation is dominant. An optimal rain-monitoring strategy for remote regions might therefore judiciously combine information from both satellite and NWP models.
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
High-quality spatial climate data-sets for Australia
Jones, D. A., Wang, W., & Fawcett, R. (2009) · Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal · doi:10.1071/es09032 · Cited by 1,316
Magnitude and variability of land evaporation and its components at the global scale
Miralles, D. G., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Holmes, T. R. H., & Dolman, A. J. (2011) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-15-967-2011 · Cited by 508
Sharifi, E., Steinacker, R., & Saghafian, B. (2016) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs8020135 · Cited by 382
Beck, H. E., Pan, M., Miralles, D. G., Reichle, R. H., Dorigo, W. A., Hahn, S., Sheffield, J., Karthikeyan, L., Balsamo, G., Parinussa, R. M., et al. (2021) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-25-17-2021 · Cited by 380
Metadata
- Authors
- Ebert, E. E., Janowiak, J. E., & Kidd, C.
- Venue
- Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-64
- ISSN
- 0003-0007 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0477
- OpenAlex
- W2099270539
- Cited by
- 1,029
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 28.22
- 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: Comparison of Near-Real-Time Precipitation Estimates from Satellite Observations and Numerical Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/bams-88-1-47
- The paper
- Ebert, E. E., Janowiak, J. E., & Kidd, C. (2007). Comparison of Near-Real-Time Precipitation Estimates from Satellite Observations and Numerical Models. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-88-1-47
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.