1 / 25

Validation and Inter-comparison of Satellite Rainfall Products over Complex Topography

Validation and Inter-comparison of Satellite Rainfall Products over Complex Topography T. Dinku, P. Ceccato, E. Grover-Kopec, S. J. Connor and C. F. Ropelewski tufa@iri.columbia.edu. International Research Institute for climate and society (IRI)

kelsey-scott
Download Presentation

Validation and Inter-comparison of Satellite Rainfall Products over Complex Topography

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Validation and Inter-comparison of Satellite Rainfall Products over Complex Topography T. Dinku, P. Ceccato, E. Grover-Kopec, S. J. Connor and C. F. Ropelewski tufa@iri.columbia.edu International Research Institute for climate and society (IRI) The Earth Institute at Columbia University

  2. Motivation • Questions from users of IRI Data Library on quality of the different rainfall estimates • IRI uses/intends to use satellite rainfall estimates mainly fro famine early warning and epidemic (Malaria/Rift valley fever) monitoring • Which data should be use • Plans to help NMS to merge their gauge data with the “best” satellite product • Which is the best product?

  3. Outline • Study region • Gauge and satellite data used • Monthly products at 2.5-deg resolution • Ten-daily accumulation at 1-deg resolution - Effects of topography, PM input and Calibration • Daily products at 0.25 degree • Summary

  4. Study areas Ethiopia Zimbabwe

  5. Ethiopia: Mean Annual Rainfall New_LocClim (FAO)

  6. Ethiopia: Topography vs. Rainfall NewLocClim New_LocClim (FAO)

  7. 22 35 39 Elevation [meters] 22 Raingauge Used • Gauge Data • -147 Station total, 120 used • - 1990-2004 for monthly @ 2.5 deg • 2000-2004 for 10-daily @ 1 deg • 2003 and 2004 for daily at 0.25 deg • Gauge data gridded using Climate Aided Interpolation • Kriging for interpolating the means • Angular-Distance Weighting for anomalies

  8. Seasonal variation of rainfall

  9. Satellite data used

  10. Comparisons: monthly @ 2.5 deg

  11. Monthly at 2.5-degree (1/2) Data: 1998-2004

  12. Monthly at 2.5-degree (2/2)

  13. Comparisons: 10-daily @ 1.0 deg

  14. 10-day @ 1o x 1o RFE1 vs RFE2: Effect of topography Data: March to September 2000

  15. 10-day @ 1o x 1o RFE2vs ARC: Effect of PM data and sampling?

  16. 10-day @ 1o x 1o RFE2 vs 3B42RT: Effect of calibration(?)

  17. 10-day @ 1o x 1o 1DD, 3B42, TAMSAT and CMORPH

  18. . -20 .-30 О-40 .-50 .-60 Ethiopia: CCD Thresholds(oC)

  19. 10-day @ 0.25o RFE2, 3B42, CMORPH

  20. Comparisons: Daily @ 0.25 deg

  21. Daily @ 0.25o Ethiopia

  22. Daily @ 0.25o

  23. Zimbabwe: - 43 Stations(12 GTS) - No griding - Data from Jan, Feb, Mar, Nov & Dec 2003

  24. Daily @ 0.25o

  25. Summary Results very good for monthly products @ 2.5 deg, good for 10-day products @ 1 deg, but poor for the daily products @ 0.25 deg There is significant influence of topography, which should be taken into account Spatially (and temporally) varying temperature thresholds and regression parameters improve the accuracy significantly. -> TAMSAT performed as well as CMORPH

More Related