Cited by 73Precipitation Measurement and AnalysisHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations

A Real-Time Automated Quality Control of Hourly Rain Gauge Data Based on Multiple Sensors in MRMS System

Qi, Youcun, Martinaitis, Steven, Zhang, Jian, Cocks, Stephen·2016·Journal of Hydrometeorology

Abstract

Abstract Automated rain gauge networks provide direct measurements of precipitation and have been used for numerous applications, such as generating regional and national precipitation maps, calibrating remote sensing quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE), and validating hydrological and meteorological model predictions. However, automated gauge observations are prone to be affected by a variety of error sources and require a careful quality-control (QC) procedure. Many previous gauge QC techniques were based on spatiotemporal checks within the gauge network itself, and their effectiveness can be dependent on gauge densities and precipitation regimes. The current study takes advantage of the multisensor data sources in the Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor (MRMS) system and develops an automated and computationally efficient gauge QC scheme based on the consistency of hourly gauge and radar QPE observations. Radar and gauge error characteristics related to radar sampling geometry, precipitation regimes, and freezing-level height is utilized within this scheme. This QC scheme is evaluated by testing its capability to identify suspect gauges and comparing the ability to quality-controlled gauges through statistical and spatial comparisons of gauge-influenced gridded QPE products. Spatial analysis of the gridded QPE products in MRMS resulted in a more physical spatial QPE distribution using quality-controlled gauges versus the same product created with non-quality-controlled gauge data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/jhm-d-15-0188.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Machine learning algorithms such as decision trees, K-nearest neighbors, and isolation forests have been applied to classify outliers, significantly improving detection accuracy of anomalous precipitation data.

    “For example, machine learning algorithms such as decision trees, K-nearest neighbors, and isolation forests have been applied to classify outliers, significantly improving the detection accuracy of anomalous precipitation data [36][37][38][39].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Qi, Y., Martinaitis, S., Zhang, J., & Cocks, S.
Affiliations
  • Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies (US)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
Corresponding author
Qi, Youcun
Venue
Journal of Hydrometeorology
Published
2016-05-24
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
1675-1691
ISSN
  • 1525-7541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-755X
OpenAlex
W2338137192
Cited by
73
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hydrometeorology (publishedVersion)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Precipitation Measurement and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Keywords
radar quantitative precipitation estimation, freezing level height, precipitation regime

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