Evaluation of satellite and model precipitation products over Turkey

Date

2017-12-15

Author

Amjad, Muhammad
Yılmaz, Mustafa Tuğrul

Metadata

Show full item record

Item Usage Stats

12
views

0
downloads

Cite This

Satellite-based remote sensing, gauge stations, and models are the three major platforms to acquire precipitation dataset. Among them satellites and models have the advantage of retrieving spatially and temporally continuous and consistent datasets, while the uncertainty estimates of these retrievals are often required for many hydrological studies to understand the source and the magnitude of the uncertainty in hydrological response parameters. In this study, satellite and model precipitation data products are validated over various temporal scales (daily, 3-daily, 7-daily, 10-daily and monthly) using in-situ measured precipitation observations from a network of 733 gauges from all over the Turkey. Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) 3B42 version 7 and European Center of Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) model estimates (daily, 3-daily, 7-daily and 10-daily accumulated forecast) are used in this study. Retrievals are evaluated for their mean and standard deviation and their accuracies are evaluated via bias, root mean square error, error standard deviation and correlation coefficient statistics. Intensity vs frequency analysis and some contingency table statistics like percent correct, probability of detection, false alarm ratio and critical success index are determined using daily time-series. Both ECMWF forecasts and TRMM observations, on average, overestimate the precipitation compared to gauge estimates; wet biases are 10.26 mm/month and 8.65 mm/month, respectively for ECMWF and TRMM. RMSE values of ECMWF forecasts and TRMM estimates are 39.69 mm/month and 41.55 mm/month, respectively. Monthly correlations between Gauges-ECMWF, Gauges-TRMM and ECMWF-TRMM are 0.76, 0.73 and 0.81, respectively. The model and the satellite error statistics are further compared against the gauges error statistics based on inverse distance weighting (IWD) analysis. Both the model and satellite data have less IWD errors (14.72 mm/month and 10.75 mm/month, respectively) compared to gauges IWD error (21.58 mm/month). These results show that, on average, ECMWF forecast data have higher skill than TRMM observations. Overall, both ECMWF forecast data and TRMM observations show good potential for catchment scale hydrological analysis.

URI

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm17/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/271347
https://hdl.handle.net/11511/87444

Collections

Department of Civil Engineering, Conference / Seminar