Advertisement

Gridded data as a source of missing data replacement in station records

  • Jitendra Kumar Meher
  • Lalu DasEmail author
Article
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

The quality of available station data over western Himalayan region (WHR) of India is poor due to missing values, and hence quantifying climate change information at the station level is more challenging. The present study investigated the extent to which the available two different resolutions gridded rainfall data from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) namely, IMD-\(0.25{^{\circ }}\times 0.25{^{\circ }}\) (IMD.25) and IMD-\(1{^{\circ }}\times 1{^{\circ }}\) (IMD1) and global observational gridded data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU-\(0.5{^{\circ }}\times 0.5{^{\circ }}\)) of UK can be used as a substitute to replace the missing values in IMD station data. Long-term time series produced at each station location showed that IMD.25 data was much closer to observation both in magnitude and patterns compared to CRU and IMD1. The seasonal and annual scale performance of these gridded data has been evaluated through different agreement and error indices. The agreement indices showed higher values in case of IMD.25 data while IMD1 and CRU indicated poor results. Similarly, the estimated errors are minimum in IMD.25 and maximum in CRU data. Finally, an overall agreement index (OAI) was developed by the combined influence of all the agreement indices. The results of OAI for each station revealed that in more than 77% of cases, the performance of IMD.25 gridded data to reproduce station level rainfall is superior as compared to IMD1 (<63%) and CRU (<46%) data. Therefore, it is concluded that the IMD.25 gridded data may be reliably used as a substitute data source in place of missing rain-gauge data over the WHR.

Keywords

Rain gauge missing data western Himalaya India Meteorological Department Climate Research Unit 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Norway Research Council and Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate for their funding assistance through the Indo-Norway international research project ‘INDICE’. The National Climate Centre (NCC) of Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), Pune and Climate Research Unit (CRU), UK, are also acknowledged for making data available for this study. The help provided by Dr D S Pai, IMD, in the course of this work is also acknowledged. The constructive suggestions provided by two anonymous reviewers to improve the quality of the paper have been highly appreciated.

References

  1. Azid A, Juahir H and Latif M T et al. 2013 Feed-forward artificial neural network model for air pollutant index prediction in the southern region of peninsular Malaysia; J. Environ. Protect. 04 1–10,  https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2013.412a001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benestad R E, Mezghani A and Parding K M 2014 ESD for Mac & Linux/ESD for Windows; version 17. figshare, http://figshare.com/articles/esd_for_Mac_amp_Linux/1160493.
  3. Bothale R V, Rao P V N, Dutt C B S and Dadhwal V K 2015 Detection of snow melt and freezing in Himalaya using OSCAT data; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 124(1) 101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castaneda M and Gonzalez M 2008 Statistical analysis of precipitation trends in the Patagonia region in southern South America; Atmósfera 21(3) 303–317.Google Scholar
  5. Chang K 2013 Introduction to geographic information systems (7th edn), McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Covey C, AchutaRao K M, Fiorino M, Gleckler P T, Taylor K E and Wehner M F 2002 Intercomparison of climate datasets as a measure of observational uncertainty; Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, UCRL-ID-147371, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Das L and Lohar D 2005 Construction of climate change scenarios for a tropical monsoon region; Clim. Res. 30 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Das L, Annan J D, Hargreaves J C and Emori S 2012 Improvements over three generations of climate model simulations for eastern India; Clim. Res. 51(3) 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Das L, Meher J K, Akhter J, Benestad R E and Mezghani A 2014 Assessing the performance of CMIP5 GCMs in simulating the observed annual and seasonal rainfall over the Western Himalayan Region of India; J. Agrometeorol. Spec. Issue  16 139–142.Google Scholar
  10. Das L, Meher J K and Dutta M 2016 Construction of rainfall change scenarios over the Chilka Lagoon in India; Atmos. Res. 182 36–45,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.07.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Das L, Dutta M, Mezghani A and Benestad R E 2017 Use of observed temperature statistics in ranking CMIP5 model performance over the Western Himalayan Region of India; Int. J. Climatol.,  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5193.
  12. Dimri A P 2012 Atmospheric water budget over the western Himalayas in a regional climate model; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 121(4) 963–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dimri A P, Yasunari T, Kotlia B S, Mohanty U C and Sikka D R 2016 Indian winter monsoon: Present and past; Earth-Sci. Rev163 297–322,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dominick D, Juahir H and Latif M T et al. 2012 Spatial assessment of air quality patterns in Malaysia using multivariate analysis; Atmos. Environ. 60 172–181,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geyer C J 1999 Likelihood inference for spatial point processes; In: Stochastic geometry: Likelihood and computation (eds) Barndorff-Nielsen O E, Kendall W S and van Lieshout M N M, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 79–140.Google Scholar
  16. Geyer C J and Thompson E A 1992 Constrained Monte Carlo maximum likelihood for dependent data (with discussion); J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 54 657–699.Google Scholar
  17. Geyer C J and Thompson E A 1995 Annealing Markov chain Monte Carlo with applications to ancestral inference; J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90 909,  https://doi.org/10.2307/229132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janssen P H M and Heuberger P S C 1995 Calibration of process-oriented models; Ecol. Model. 83(1–2) 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joshi J C and Ganju A 2010 Use of objective analysis to estimate winter temperature and precipitation at different stations over western Himalaya; J. Earth Syst. Sci. 119(5) 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joshi V and Negi G C S 1995 Analysis of long-term weather data from Garhwal Himalaya; ENVIS bulletin on Himalayan ecology, Kosi, Almora, India; GBPIHE&D 3(1–2) 63–64.Google Scholar
  21. Junninen H, Niska H and Tuppurainen K et al. 2004 Methods for imputation of missing values in air quality datasets; Atmos. Environ. 38 2895–2907,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Legates D R and McCabe Jr G J 1999 Evaluating the use of “Goodness-of-Fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation; Water Resour. Res35(1) 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Palutikof J P, Winkler J A, Goodess C M and Andresen J A 1997 The simulation of daily temperature time series from GCM output. I. Comparison of model data with observations; J. Clim. 10 2497–2513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peng L L L 2005 A review of missing data treatment methods; Int. J. Intel. Inf. Manag. Syst. Tech. 1(3).Google Scholar
  25. Meher J K, Das L and Akhter J 2014 Future rainfall change scenarios simulated through AR4 and AR5 GCMs over the Western Himalayan Region; J. Agrometeorol. Spec. Issue 16 53–58Google Scholar
  26. Meher J K, Das L and Singh V J 2015 Analysis of trends in monsoon rainfall and its influence on productivity of Kharif rice: A district wise latest update; In: Crop productivity and plant disease management (eds) Chauhan A, Bharti P K and Sadana D, Discovery Publications, ENV Discovery Publications, ENV Books series, New Delhi, India, pp. 60–77.Google Scholar
  27. Meher J K, Das L, Akhter J, Benestad R E and Mezghani A 2017a Performance of CMIP3 and CMIP5 GCMs to simulate observed rainfall characteristics over the Western Himalayan region; J. Climate,  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0774.1.
  28. Meher J K, Das L, Benestad R E and Mezghani A 2017b Analysis of winter rainfall change statistics over the Western Himalaya: The influence of internal variability and topography. Int. J. Climatol.,  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mir R A, Jain S K, Saraf A K and Goswami A 2015 Decline in snowfall in response to temperature in Satlej basin, western Himalaya; J. Earth Syst. Sci124(2) 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nash J E and Sutcliffe J V 1970 River flow forecasting through conceptual models parts I – A discussion of principles; J. Hydrol. 10(3) 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pai D S, Sridhar L, Rajeevan M, Sreejith O P, Satbhai N S and Mukhopadhyay B 2014 Development of a new high spatial resolution (0.25\(\times \)0.25) long period (1901–2010) daily gridded rainfall dataset over India and its comparison with existing datasets over the region; Mausam 65(1) 1–18.Google Scholar
  32. Rajeevan M, Bhate J and Jaswa A K 2008 Analysis of variability and trends of extreme rainfall events over India using 104 years of gridded daily rainfall data; J. Geophys. Res.  35 L18707.Google Scholar
  33. Rao K S 1997 Natural resource management and development in Himalaya: A recourse to issues and strategies; ENVIS Monograph 1, EICHE, GBPIHE&D, Kosi, Almora, India.Google Scholar
  34. Sahu S 2014 Design and implementation of a heterogeneous sensor-based embedded system for flood management; Doctoral dissertation, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, NIT Rourkela, India.Google Scholar
  35. Shrestha M L 2000 Interannual variation of summer monsoon rainfall over Nepal and its relation to southern oscillation index; \(J.\) Meteor. Atmos. Phys. 75 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh P and Kumar N 1997 Effect of orography on precipitation in the western Himalayan region; J. Hydrol199 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor K E 2001 Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram; J. Geophys. Res. 106 7183–7192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Willmott C J 1981 On the validation of models; Phys. Geogr. 2 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willmott C J 1982 Some comments on the evaluation of model performance; Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc.  63 1309–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xia Y, Ek M B, Peters-Lidard C D, Mocko D, Svoboda M, Sheffield J and Wood E F 2014 Application of USDM statistics in NLDAS-2: Optimal blended NLDAS drought index over the continental United States; J. Geophys. Res. Atmos119(6) 2947–2965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xie P and Arkin P A 1995 An intercomparison of gauge observations and satellite estimates of monthly precipitations; J. Appl. Meteor. 34 1143–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yilmaz K K and Hogue T S 2005 Intercomparison of rain gauge, radar, and satellite based precipitation estimates with emphasis on hydrologic forecasting; J. Hydrometeor. 6 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zambrano-Bigiarini M 2014 hydroGOF: Goodness-of-fit functions for comparison of simulated and observed hydrological time series; R package version 0.3–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Meteorology and PhysicsBidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV)Mohanpur, NadiaIndia

Personalised recommendations