2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125284
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recent global performance of the Climate Hazards group Infrared Precipitation (CHIRP) with Stations (CHIRPS)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
29
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
3
29
1
Order By: Relevance
“…CHIRPS have negative biases (−2.01%) before 2000, while this underestimation was corrected after 2000. Temporal analysis and intensity distribution of the gauge-adjusted CHIRPS estimates are in line with the estimates of the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) in several regions of the world, such as the United States, Europe, and Africa [39].…”
Section: Precipitation Parametersupporting
confidence: 74%
“…CHIRPS have negative biases (−2.01%) before 2000, while this underestimation was corrected after 2000. Temporal analysis and intensity distribution of the gauge-adjusted CHIRPS estimates are in line with the estimates of the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) in several regions of the world, such as the United States, Europe, and Africa [39].…”
Section: Precipitation Parametersupporting
confidence: 74%
“…And these features may reflect improvements in terms of updates to the algorithms, or changes in available data sources. In future studies, we can further partition the study period and compare the characteristics of the errors over different study periods (Shen et al, 2020;Tang et al, 2020). Spatial averaging poses similar problems, but our approach is generalized to different spatial and temporal scales.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent global-scale evaluation of CHIRPS monthly precipitation from 2000 to 2016 with the Global Precipitation Climatology Center gauge-based precipitation data reported error (including random and bias components) within ±2.5% across Europe, Africa, Australia, United States, and South America (Shen et al, 2020). The Southeast China region had a relatively larger error at 5.6% (Shen et al, 2020); however, this region does not cover the large cropland areas included in this study. Additionally, these errors are at a monthly scale and the annual scale error is smaller at −0.06% (Shen et al, 2020).…”
Section: Model Parameter Estimation Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…The Southeast China region had a relatively larger error at 5.6% (Shen et al, 2020); however, this region does not cover the large cropland areas included in this study. Additionally, these errors are at a monthly scale and the annual scale error is smaller at −0.06% (Shen et al, 2020).…”
Section: Model Parameter Estimation Uncertaintiesmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation