Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Comparison of the NCEP––NCAR Reanalysis Precipitation and the GPCP Rain Gauge––Satellite Combined Dataset with Observational Error Considerations

A Comparison of the NCEP––NCAR Reanalysis Precipitation and the GPCP Rain Gauge––Satellite... The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) has released monthly mean estimates of precipitation that comprise gauge observations and satellite-derived precipitation estimates. Estimates of standard random error for each month at each grid location are also provided in this data release. One of the primary intended uses of this dataset is the validation of climatic-scale precipitation fields that are produced by numerical models. Nearly coincident with this dataset development, the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and the National Center for Atmospheric Research have joined in a cooperative effort to reanalyze meteorological fields from the present back to the 1940s using a fixed state-of-the-art data assimilation system and large input database. In this paper, monthly accumulations of reanalysis precipitation are compared with the GPCP combined rain gauge––satellite dataset over the period 1988––95. A unique feature of this comparison is the use of standard error estimates that are contained in the GPCP combined dataset. These errors are incorporated into the comparison to provide more realistic assessments of the reanalysis model performance than could be attained by using only the mean fields. Variability on timescales from intraseasonal to interannual are examined between the GPCP and reanalysis precipitation. While the representation of large-scale features compares well between the two datasets, substantial differences are observed on regional scales. This result is not unexpected since present-day data assimilation systems are not designed to incorporate observations of precipitation. Furthermore, inferences of deficiencies in the reanalysis precipitation should not be projected to other fields in which observations have been assimilated directly into the reanalysis model. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Climate American Meteorological Society

A Comparison of the NCEP––NCAR Reanalysis Precipitation and the GPCP Rain Gauge––Satellite Combined Dataset with Observational Error Considerations

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-meteorological-society/a-comparison-of-the-ncep-ncar-reanalysis-precipitation-and-the-gpcp-9h2hQ9NIjl

References (38)

Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 American Meteorological Society
ISSN
1520-0442
DOI
10.1175/1520-0442(1998)011<2960:ACOTNN>2.0.CO;2
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) has released monthly mean estimates of precipitation that comprise gauge observations and satellite-derived precipitation estimates. Estimates of standard random error for each month at each grid location are also provided in this data release. One of the primary intended uses of this dataset is the validation of climatic-scale precipitation fields that are produced by numerical models. Nearly coincident with this dataset development, the National Centers for Environmental Prediction and the National Center for Atmospheric Research have joined in a cooperative effort to reanalyze meteorological fields from the present back to the 1940s using a fixed state-of-the-art data assimilation system and large input database. In this paper, monthly accumulations of reanalysis precipitation are compared with the GPCP combined rain gauge––satellite dataset over the period 1988––95. A unique feature of this comparison is the use of standard error estimates that are contained in the GPCP combined dataset. These errors are incorporated into the comparison to provide more realistic assessments of the reanalysis model performance than could be attained by using only the mean fields. Variability on timescales from intraseasonal to interannual are examined between the GPCP and reanalysis precipitation. While the representation of large-scale features compares well between the two datasets, substantial differences are observed on regional scales. This result is not unexpected since present-day data assimilation systems are not designed to incorporate observations of precipitation. Furthermore, inferences of deficiencies in the reanalysis precipitation should not be projected to other fields in which observations have been assimilated directly into the reanalysis model.

Journal

Journal of ClimateAmerican Meteorological Society

Published: Jul 17, 1997

There are no references for this article.