Validation of Satellite-Derived Rainfall Estimates and Numerical Model Forecasts of Precipitation over the US John Janowiak Climate Prediction Center/NCEP/NWS 2 nd Int’l Precipitation Working Group - October 26, 2004
Work is modeled after the pioneering effort of Dr. Beth Ebert (BMRC/Australian BOM) U.S. Validation at:
Validation Data Set station reports daily - 06Z – 06Z accumulation period - Data analyzed using a Cressman-type scheme - Error characteristics of validation data are NOT known - Validation area matched for all estimates (if missing in one, made missing in all) Typical Station Distribution
Validation Results
Cold Season Precipitation Amt. (Jan 2004)
Cold Season Precipitation Diff. (Jan 2004)
Warm Season Precipitation Amt. (Jun 2004)
Warm Season Precipitation Diff. (Jun 2004)
Validation Data Set Typical Station Distribution
CPC gauge analysis ( Aug 2003) CMORPH analysis ( Aug 2003) CMORPH with evap. adjustment
Bias Ratio (areal coverage)
west east
BIAS Ratio (estimated mean / gauge mean)
west east
Mean precip. for entire US (not to scale)
Contribution to June 2004 Total Rainfall by Daily Rainfall Amount Heaviest 10% of daily rainfall events
CONCLUSIONS 1. Merging PMW & IR estimates provides more accurate estimates of precipitation than the separate components can
CONCLUSIONS 1. Merging PMW & IR estimates provides more accurate estimates of precipitation than the separate components can 2. Two major systematic biases are apparent in the satellite estimates: a. OVERestimation over snow-covered regions b. OVERestimation in semi-arid regions during the warm season
CONCLUSIONS 1. Merging PMW & IR estimates provides more accurate estimates of precipitation than the separate components can 2. Two major systematic biases are apparent in the satellite estimates: a. OVERestimation over snow-covered regions b. OVERestimation in semi-arid regions during the warm season 3. NWP forecasts generally outperform blended satellite estimates and radar during the winter season over the U.S.
The End
Effects of Interpolating the Data
POD FAR Probability of Detection/False Alarm Ratio
POD FAR east west Probability of Detection/False Alarm Ratio
POD FAR east west Probability of Detection/False Alarm Ratio
POD FAR Probability of Detection/False Alarm Ratio July 2004
POD FAR Probability of Detection/False Alarm Ratio July 2004 January 2004
CMORPH vs. gauge over ‘NAME*’ zones *North American Monsoon Experiment (2004)
CPC gauge analysis ( Aug 2003) CMORPH analysis ( Aug 2003)
CMORPH with RH adjustment vs. gauge over ‘NAME’ zones
Statistics over 9 NAME Zones Evap. adjusted
Distribution of Daily Precipitation Amounts for June >90
Distribution of Daily Precipitation Amounts for Jan 1-22, 2004
Bias Ratio (areal coverage)
west east
BIAS Ratio (mean radar/ mean gauge)
west east