Dependence of estimated precipitation frequency and intensity on data resolution
- 479 Downloads
Precipitation frequency (F) and intensity (I) are important characteristics that climate models often fail to simulate realistically. Their estimates are highly sensitive to the spatial and temporal resolutions of the input data and this further complicates the comparison between models and observations. Here, we analyze 3-hourly precipitation data on a 0.25° grid from two satellite-derived datasets, namely TRMM 3B42 and CMORPH_V1.0, to quantify this dependence of the estimated precipitation F and I on data resolution. We then develop a simple probability-based relationship to explain this dependence, and examine the spatial and seasonal variations in the estimated F and I fields. As expected, precipitation F (I) increases (decreases) with the size of the grid box or time interval over which the data are averaged, but the magnitude of this change varies with location, and is strongest in the tropics and weakest in the subtropics. Our simple relationship can quantitatively explain this dependence of the estimated F and I on the spatial or temporal resolution of the input data. This demonstrates that large differences in the estimated F and I can arise purely from the differences in the spatial or temporal resolution of the input data. The results highlight the need to have similar resolution in comparing two datasets or between observations and models. Our estimates show that extremely low frequencies (<1%) are seen over the subtropics while the highest frequencies (20–40%) are located mostly over the tropics, and that the high frequency results from both longer and more frequent precipitation events. Precipitation intensity is more uniformly distributed than frequency. Strong correlations between the amount and frequency confirm the notion that the frequency plays a bigger role than intensity in determining precipitation variations.
KeywordsPrecipitation Frequency Intensity Data resolution Model evaluation
The authors acknowledge the funding support from the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant #AGS–1353740), the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science (Award No. DE–SC0012602), and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Award No. NA15OAR4310086).
- Biasutti M, Yuter SE (2013) Observed frequency and intensity of tropical precipitation from instantaneous estimates. J Geophys Res 118:9534–9551Google Scholar
- Dai A, Rasmussen RM, Liu C, Ikeda I, Prein AF (2017) A new mechanism for warm-season precipitation response to global warming based on convection-permitting simulations. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-017-3787-6
- Deng Y, Bowman KP, Jackson C (2007) Differences in rain rate intensities between TRMM observations and community atmosphere model simulations. Geophys Res Lett 34:L01808Google Scholar
- Ellis TD, L’Ecuyer T, Haynes JM, Stephens GL (2009) How often does it rain over the global oceans? The perspective from CloudSat. Geophys Res Lett 36:L03815. doi: 10.1029/2008GL036728
- Higgins RW, Janowiak JE, Yao YP (1996) A gridded hourly precipitation data base for the United States (1963–1993). US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather ServiceGoogle Scholar
- Petty GW (1995) Frequencies and characteristics of global oceanic precipitation from shipboard present-weather reports. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 76:1593–1616Google Scholar
- Petty GW (1997) An intercomparison of oceanic precipitation frequencies from 10 special sensor microwave/imager rain rate algorithms and shipboard present weather reports. J Geophys Res 102(D2):1757–1777Google Scholar
- Xie P, Joyce RJ (2014) Integrating information from satellite observations and numerical models for improved global precipitation analyses: exploring for an optimal strategy. Remote Sensing of the Terrestrial Water Cycle. Geophys Monogr Am Geophys Union 206:43–60, doi: 10.1002/9781118872086.ch3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zipser EJ, Liu C, Cecil DJ, Nesbitt SW, Yorty DP (2006) Where are the most intense thunderstorms on Earth? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 87:1057–1071Google Scholar