Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 217

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of the GPCP and CMAP Merged Gauge–Satellite Monthly Precipitation Products for the Period 1979–2001

Yin, Xungang, Gruber, Arnold, Arkin, Phil·2004·Journal of Hydrometeorology

Abstract

The two monthly precipitation products of the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) and the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Merged Analysis of Precipitation (CMAP) are compared on a 23-yr period, January 1979–December 2001. For the long-term mean, major precipitation patterns are clearly demonstrated by both products, but there are differences in the pattern magnitudes. In the tropical ocean the CMAP is higher than the GPCP, but this is reversed in the high-latitude ocean. The GPCP–CMAP spatial correlation is generally higher over land than over the ocean. The correlation between the global mean oceanic GPCP and CMAP is significantly low. It is very likely because the input data of the two products have much less in common over the ocean; in particular, the use of atoll data by the CMAP is disputable. The decreasing trend in the CMAP oceanic precipitation is found to be an artifact of input data change and atoll sampling error. In general, overocean precipitation represented by the GPCP is more reasonable; over land the two products are close, but different merging algorithms between the GPCP and the CMAP can sometimes produce substantial discrepancy in sensitive areas such as equatorial West Africa. EOF analysis shows that the GPCP and the CMAP are similar in 6 out of the first 10 modes, and the first 2 leading modes (ENSO patterns) of the GPCP are nearly identical to their counterparts of the CMAP. Input data changes [e.g., January 1986 for Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) precipitation index (GPI), July 1987 for Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), May 1994 for Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU), and January 1996 for atolls] have implications in the behavior of the two datasets. Several abrupt changes identified in the statistics of the two datasets including the changes in overocean precipitation, spatial correlation time series, and some of the EOF principal components, can be related to one or more input data changes.

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/jhm-392.1

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 217

Metadata

Authors
Yin, X., Gruber, A., & Arkin, P.
Venue
Journal of Hydrometeorology
Published
2004-12-01
Volume
5
Issue
6
Pages
1207-1222
ISSN
  • 1525-7541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-755X
OpenAlex
W2008768311
Cited by
217
References
0
FWCI
6.35
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 the GPCP and CMAP Merged Gauge–Satellite Monthly Precipitation Products for the Period 1979–2001. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jhm-392.1
The paper
Yin, X., Gruber, A., & Arkin, P. (2004). Comparison of the GPCP and CMAP Merged Gauge–Satellite Monthly Precipitation Products for the Period 1979–2001. Journal of Hydrometeorology. https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-392.1

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.