Comparison and Evaluation of Rain Gauge, CMORPH, TRMM PR and GPM DPR KuPR Precipitation Products over South China

Remote sensing precipitation products are essential for the systematic analysis of precipitation characteristics and changes. This study conducts a comparative evaluation of precipitation products from rain gauge stations, Climate Prediction Center morphing technique (CMORPH), Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission precipitation radar (TRMM PR) version 7 and Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar Ku band (DPR KuPR) version 6 orbital observations during the common observational period (April–September 2014) across South China. The spatial patterns and probability density function of rain rates from four precipitation products show similar features. However, average rain rates from CMORPH (0.2–2.6 mm/h) tend to be smaller than those from rain gauge (0.1–4.4 mm/h) in temporal and spatial distribution. Conversely, average rain rates from TRMM PR and GPM KuPR (0.4–10.0 mm/h) are generally larger and exhibit more pronounced monthly changes. Despite notable differences in the number of detection samples, TRMM and GPM exhibit comparable spatiotemporal distributions and vertical structures, including rain-rate profiles, storm top heights and liquid (ice) water path. This confirms the consistency of space-borne precipitation radars and provides a foundation for analyzing long-term precipitation trends. Further analysis reveals that light rain rates from CMORPH have relatively small deviations, while rain rates generally tend to underestimate the rain rate compared to rain gauge. In contrast, TRMM PR and GPM KuPR tend to generally overestimate rain rates. Meanwhile, CMORPH (1.5–6.0 mm/h) shows larger deviations from rain gauge than TRMM and GPM, and the bias progressively increases as rain rates rise, as indicated by root mean square error results. Several statistical metrics suggest that although the missing detection rates of TRMM and GPM are higher than those of CMORPH (probability of detection 10–60%), their false detection rates are spatially lower (false alert ratio 10–30%) in Middle-East China. This study aims to provide valuable insights for enhancing precipitation retrieval algorithms and improving the applicability of remote sensing precipitation products.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Remote Sensing
Published
2025-06-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17122040
Primary Topic
Precipitation Measurement and Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison and Evaluation of Rain Gauge, CMORPH, TRMM PR and GPM DPR KuPR Precipitation Products over South China

Huiping Li, Rui Wang, Hao Huang, Liangliang Li
1 links
Remote Sensing
Precipitation Measurement and Analysis
article

Comparison and Evaluation of Rain Gauge, CMORPH, TRMM PR and GPM DPR KuPR Precipitation Products over South China

Huiping Li, Rui Wang, Hao Huang, Liangliang Li
article en

Abstract

Remote sensing precipitation products are essential for the systematic analysis of precipitation characteristics and changes. This study conducts a comparative evaluation of precipitation products from rain gauge stations, Climate Prediction Center morphing technique (CMORPH), Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission precipitation radar (TRMM PR) version 7 and Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar Ku band (DPR KuPR) version 6 orbital observations during the common observational period (April–September 2014) across South China. The spatial patterns and probability density function of rain rates from four precipitation products show similar features. However, average rain rates from CMORPH (0.2–2.6 mm/h) tend to be smaller than those from rain gauge (0.1–4.4 mm/h) in temporal and spatial distribution. Conversely, average rain rates from TRMM PR and GPM KuPR (0.4–10.0 mm/h) are generally larger and exhibit more pronounced monthly changes. Despite notable differences in the number of detection samples, TRMM and GPM exhibit comparable spatiotemporal distributions and vertical structures, including rain-rate profiles, storm top heights and liquid (ice) water path. This confirms the consistency of space-borne precipitation radars and provides a foundation for analyzing long-term precipitation trends. Further analysis reveals that light rain rates from CMORPH have relatively small deviations, while rain rates generally tend to underestimate the rain rate compared to rain gauge. In contrast, TRMM PR and GPM KuPR tend to generally overestimate rain rates. Meanwhile, CMORPH (1.5–6.0 mm/h) shows larger deviations from rain gauge than TRMM and GPM, and the bias progressively increases as rain rates rise, as indicated by root mean square error results. Several statistical metrics suggest that although the missing detection rates of TRMM and GPM are higher than those of CMORPH (probability of detection 10–60%), their false detection rates are spatially lower (false alert ratio 10–30%) in Middle-East China. This study aims to provide valuable insights for enhancing precipitation retrieval algorithms and improving the applicability of remote sensing precipitation products.

Remote SensingVol. 17(12)
China Meteorological Administration (CN), State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather, Northwest Normal University (CN), Lanzhou University (CN), Nanjing University (CN)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather
Openalex Percentile: Top 82%
Precipitation Measurement and Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.