Let It Snow: Intercomparison of Various Total and Snow Precipitation Data over the Tibetan Plateau

IF 2.5 4区地球科学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Atmosphere Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.3390/atmos15091076

Christine Kolbe, Boris Thies, Jörg Bendix

{"title":"Let It Snow: Intercomparison of Various Total and Snow Precipitation Data over the Tibetan Plateau","authors":"Christine Kolbe, Boris Thies, Jörg Bendix","doi":"10.3390/atmos15091076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (GPM) improved spaceborne precipitation data. The GPM dual-frequency precipitation radar (DPR) provides information on total precipitation (TP), snowfall precipitation (SF) and snowfall flags (surface snowfall flag (SSF) and phase near surface (PNS)), among other variables. Especially snowfall data were hardly validated. This study compares GPM DPR TP, SF and snowfall flags on the Tibetan Plateau (TiP) against TP and SF from six well-known model-based data sets used as ground truth: ERA 5, ERA 5 land, ERA Interim, MERRA 2, JRA 55 and HAR V2. The reanalysis data were checked for consistency. The results show overall high agreement in the cross-correlation with each other. The reanalysis data were compared to the GPM DPR snowfall flags, TP and SF. The intercomparison performs poorly for the GPM DPR snowfall flags (HSS = 0.06 for TP, HSS = 0.23 for SF), TP (HSS = 0.13) and SF (HSS = 0.31). Some studies proved temporal or spatial mismatches between spaceborne measurements and other data. We tested whether increasing the time lag of the reanalysis data (+/−three hours) or including the GPM DPR neighbor pixels (3 × 3 pixel window) improves the results. The intercomparison with the GPM DPR snowfall flags using the temporal adjustment improved the results significantly (HSS = 0.21 for TP, HSS = 0.41 for SF), whereas the spatial adjustment resulted only in small improvements (HSS = 0.12 for TP, HSS = 0.29 for SF). The intercomparison of the GPM DPR TP and SF was improved by temporal (HSS = 0.3 for TP, HSS = 0.48 for SF) and spatial adjustment (HSS = 0.35 for TP, HSS = 0.59 for SF).","PeriodicalId":8580,"journal":{"name":"Atmosphere","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Atmosphere","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15091076","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (GPM) improved spaceborne precipitation data. The GPM dual-frequency precipitation radar (DPR) provides information on total precipitation (TP), snowfall precipitation (SF) and snowfall flags (surface snowfall flag (SSF) and phase near surface (PNS)), among other variables. Especially snowfall data were hardly validated. This study compares GPM DPR TP, SF and snowfall flags on the Tibetan Plateau (TiP) against TP and SF from six well-known model-based data sets used as ground truth: ERA 5, ERA 5 land, ERA Interim, MERRA 2, JRA 55 and HAR V2. The reanalysis data were checked for consistency. The results show overall high agreement in the cross-correlation with each other. The reanalysis data were compared to the GPM DPR snowfall flags, TP and SF. The intercomparison performs poorly for the GPM DPR snowfall flags (HSS = 0.06 for TP, HSS = 0.23 for SF), TP (HSS = 0.13) and SF (HSS = 0.31). Some studies proved temporal or spatial mismatches between spaceborne measurements and other data. We tested whether increasing the time lag of the reanalysis data (+/−three hours) or including the GPM DPR neighbor pixels (3 × 3 pixel window) improves the results. The intercomparison with the GPM DPR snowfall flags using the temporal adjustment improved the results significantly (HSS = 0.21 for TP, HSS = 0.41 for SF), whereas the spatial adjustment resulted only in small improvements (HSS = 0.12 for TP, HSS = 0.29 for SF). The intercomparison of the GPM DPR TP and SF was improved by temporal (HSS = 0.3 for TP, HSS = 0.48 for SF) and spatial adjustment (HSS = 0.35 for TP, HSS = 0.59 for SF).

查看原文本刊更多论文

下雪吧：青藏高原各种总降水量和降雪量数据的相互比较

全球降水测量任务（GPM）改进了空间降水数据。全球降水测量任务的双频降水雷达（DPR）提供了总降水量（TP）、降雪量（SF）和降雪标志（表面降雪标志（SSF）和近地面相位（PNS））等变量的信息。尤其是降雪量数据几乎没有经过验证。本研究将青藏高原（TiP）的 GPM DPR TP、SF 和降雪标志与六种著名的基于模式的数据集（ERA 5、ERA 5 land、ERA Interim、MERRA 2、JRA 55 和 HAR V2）中的 TP 和 SF 进行了比较。对再分析数据进行了一致性检查。结果表明，相互之间的交叉相关性总体上高度一致。将再分析数据与 GPM DPR 降雪标志、TP 和 SF 进行了比较。对于 GPM DPR 降雪标志（TP 的 HSS = 0.06，SF 的 HSS = 0.23）、TP（HSS = 0.13）和 SF（HSS = 0.31），相互比较的结果很差。一些研究证明，空间测量与其他数据之间存在时间或空间上的不匹配。我们测试了增加再分析数据的时滞（+/-3 小时）或包括 GPM DPR 邻近像素（3 × 3 像素窗口）是否能改善结果。使用时间调整与 GPM DPR 降雪量标志进行相互比较，结果明显改善（TP 的 HSS = 0.21，SF 的 HSS = 0.41），而空间调整仅带来微小改善（TP 的 HSS = 0.12，SF 的 HSS = 0.29）。通过时间调整（TP 的 HSS = 0.3，SF 的 HSS = 0.48）和空间调整（TP 的 HSS = 0.35，SF 的 HSS = 0.59），GPM DPR TP 和 SF 的相互比较得到了改善。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Atmosphere METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES-

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

13.80%

发文量

1769

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： Atmosphere (ISSN 2073-4433) is an international and cross-disciplinary scholarly journal of scientific studies related to the atmosphere. It publishes reviews, regular research papers, communications and short notes, and there is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodical details must be provided for research articles.