Search

Near real-time precipitation is essential to many applications. In Africa, the lack of dense rain-gauge networks and ground weather radars makes the use of satellite precipitation products unavoidable. Despite major progresses in estimating precipitation rate from remote sensing measurements over the past decades, satellite precipitation products still suffer from quantitative uncertainties and biases compared to ground data. Consequently, almost all precipitation products are provided in two modes: a real-time mode (also called early-run or raw product) and a corrected mode (also called final-run, adjusted or post-processed product) in which ground precipitation measurements are integrated in algorithms to correct for bias, generally at a monthly timescale. This paper describes a new methodology to provide a near-real-time precipitation product based on satellite precipitation and soil moisture measurements. Recent studies have shown that soil moisture intrinsically contains information on past precipitation and can be used to correct precipitation uncertainties. The PrISM (Precipitation inferred from Soil Moisture) methodology is presented and its performance is assessed for five in situ rainfall measurement networks located in Africa in semi-arid to wet areas: Niger, Benin, Burkina Faso, Central Africa, and East Africa. Results show that the use of SMOS (Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity) satellite soil moisture measurements in the PrISM algorithm most often improves the real-time satellite precipitation products, and provides results comparable to existing adjusted products, such as TRMM (Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission), GPCC (Global Precipitation Climatology Centre) and IMERG (Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM), which are available a few weeks or months after their detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the French Alps the quality of the radar Quantitative Precipitation Estimation (QPE) is limited by the topography and the vertical structure of precipitation. A previous study realized in all the French Alps, has shown a general bias between values of the national radar QPE composite and the rain gauge measurements: a radar QPE over-estimation at low altitude (+20% at 200 m a.s.l.), and an increasing underestimation at high altitudes (until −40% at 2100 m a.s.l.). This trend has been linked to altitudinal gradients of precipitation observed at ground level. This paper analyzes relative altitudinal gradients of precipitation estimated with rain gauges measurements in 2016 for three massifs around Grenoble, and for different temporal accumulations (yearly, seasonal, monthly, daily). Comparisons of radar and rain gauge accumulations confirm the bias previously observed. The parts of the current radar data processing affecting the bias value are pointed out. The analysis shows a coherency between the relative gradient values estimated at the different temporal accumulations. Vertical profiles of precipitation detected by a research radar installed at the bottom of the valley also show how the wide horizontal variability of precipitation inside the valley can affect the gradient estimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) remains a key area of uncertainty in hydrological modeling and prediction, particularly in small, urban watersheds, which respond rapidly to precipitation and can experience significant spatial variability in rainfall fields. Few studies have compared QPE methods in small, urban watersheds, and studies that have examined this topic only compared model results on an event basis using a small number of storms. This study sought to compare the efficacy of multiple QPE methods when simulating discharge in a small, urban watershed on a continuous basis using an operational hydrologic model and QPE forcings. The research distributed hydrologic model (RDHM) was used to model a basin in Roanoke, Virginia, USA, forced with QPEs from four methods: mean field bias (MFB) correction of radar data, kriging of rain gauge data, uncorrected radar data, and a basin-uniform estimate from a single gauge inside the watershed. Based on comparisons between simulated and observed discharge at the basin outlet for a six-month period in 2018, simulations forced with the uncorrected radar QPE had the highest accuracy, as measured by root mean squared error (RMSE) and peak flow relative error, despite systematic underprediction of the mean areal precipitation (MAP). Simulations forced with MFB-corrected radar data consistently and significantly overpredicted discharge, but had the highest accuracy in predicting the timing of peak flows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]