See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325173863

Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and

Applications

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-47871-4_4-1

CITATIONS READS

11 3,440

9 authors, including:

Yang Hong Guoqiang Tang

Monash University (Australia) National Center for Atmospheric Research
554 PUBLICATIONS 32,917 CITATIONS 97 PUBLICATIONS 3,712 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zhongying Han Ziyue Zeng

Tsinghua University Tsinghua University
27 PUBLICATIONS 1,356 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 424 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Guoqiang Tang on 23 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors,
Retrievals, Validations, and Applications

Yang Hong, Guoqiang Tang, Yingzhao Ma, Qi Huang,

Zhongying Han, Ziyue Zeng, Yuan Yang, Cunguang Wang, and
Xiaolin Guo

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Spaceborne and Ground-Based Sensors and Precipitation Retrievals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Review of Precipitation Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Infrared Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Microwave Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Ground-Based Weather Radars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Global Multi-satellite Precipitation Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PERSIANN-CCS Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
TRMM-Based Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for GPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Validation and Applications of Remote Sensing Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Regional and Global Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Application in Flood Detection and Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Conclusive Remarks and Outlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Y. Hong (*)
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic Engineering,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma,
Norman, OK, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Tang · Y. Ma · Q. Huang · Z. Han · Z. Zeng · Y. Yang · C. Wang · X. Guo
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic Engineering,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 1

X. Li, H. Vereecken (eds.), Observation and Measurement, Ecohydrology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47871-4_4-1
2 Y. Hong et al.

Abstract
Precipitation is one of the most important water cycle components. The chapter
reviews modern instruments and techniques for global precipitation retrieval,
including weather radars and satellites. Some of the most popular global multi-
satellite precipitation products are introduced, including PERSIANN-CCS,
TMPA, and IMERG. In addition, we extend to the typical regional and global
studies about the assessment of various products and their application in flood
detection and prediction.

Keywords
Remote sensing · Precipitation · Sensors · Retrievals · Validations · Applications

Introduction

Precipitation plays a vital role in understanding the mechanism and interaction of

global water and energy balance and is the main input of hydrometeorological
models and climate studies (Hong et al. 2007; Kidd and Huffman 2011). Researchers
can hardly conduct simulations of the water cycle and eco-hydrological process
without accurate precipitation inputs. Traditionally, people can measure rainfall and
snowfall using various types of ground-based rain gauges. However, rain gauge-
based techniques for precipitation observations have nonnegligible limitations in
eco-hydrology research due to large spatial nonuniformity and temporal availability
in rainfall fields inherently. And unfortunately, the number of ground rain gauges
continues to decline over the world (Stokstad 1999; Shiklomanov et al. 2002).
In addition, rain gauges have trouble observing precipitation in the oceans, polar
areas, and mountainous regions which attracts more and more attention in the
context of climate change (Ma et al. 2016).
Fortunately, the development of remote sensing techniques promotes the capa-
bility of humans in observing global precipitation. Weather radars and space-based
meteorological satellites are two major remote sensing techniques in precipitation
observation. After World War II, weather radars have dramatically improved our
ability to measure precipitation at high temporal and spatial resolutions (Farbry et al.
1994; Morin et al. 1995; Harris et al. 2001; Berne et al. 2004). For example, the
United States has built a dense radar network, namely, Next-Generation Weather
Radar (NEXRAD) consisting of around 160 high-resolution S-band Doppler
weather radars (Heiss et al. 1990; Vivekanandan et al. 1990). Regional-scale studies
can be performed across the United States, Western Europe, and a few other regions
across the globe. In China, more than 100 S-band and C-band weather radars have
also been installed and been applied in meteorological and hydrological research
(Fang et al. 2002). However, weather radar systems are still inadequate for obtaining
global precipitation and suffer from similar problems with gauges such as limited
spatial coverage, particularly in oceanic, remote, or undeveloped regions.
Currently, the only practical way to achieve global precipitation observation is
space-based meteorological satellites (Hong et al. 2012; Tang et al. 2016a). Satellite-
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 3

based precipitation estimates have great advantages in terms of spatial coverage

compared with rain gauges and weather radars. Moreover, satellite measurements are
continuous and uniform and can avoid the high cost of ground observation networks
(Hong et al. 2016). Global satellite-based rainfall products are currently mainly
based on passive microwave (PMW), calibrated infrared (IR), and PMW plus IR
observations. IR sensors are on geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) satellites which
provide precipitation estimates at high temporal resolutions, but the accuracy of
IR-based rainfall estimates is generally not good due to the indirect linkage between
IR signals and precipitation. PMW sensors are onboard low Earth orbiting (LEO)
satellites and can provide precipitation estimation with a more direct link to rain and
ice particles. Currently, some countries, such as the United States and China, have
been trying to put PMW sensors onto GEO satellites which, if realized, can promote
the capability of observing rainfall from space significantly. Active microwave
sensors can provide the most accurate estimation of rainfall and snowfall, i.e., the
Ku-band precipitation radar (PR) onboard the TRMM satellite (Simpson et al. 1988),
the W-band Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) onboard the CloudSat and the Ku-/Ka-
band Dual-frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR) onboard the GPM Core Observa-
tory (Hou et al. 2014). However, those spaceborne precipitation radars also suffer
from long revisiting periods.
There have been great numbers of multi-satellite precipitation products since the
launch of TRMM in late 1997, such as Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA)
(Huffman et al. 2007), Climate Prediction Center (CPC) MORPHing technique
(CMORPH) (Joyce et al. 2004), Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed
Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN) (Sorooshian et al.
2000), PERSIANN Cloud Classification System (PERSIANN-CCS) (Hong et al.
2004), and Global Satellite Mapping of Precipitation (GSMaP) (Kubota et al. 2007).
Those products are generally based on IR, MW, and rain gauge data which have
promoted our knowledge of global precipitation and the development of hydrolog-
ical and eco-hydrological models.
This chapter first provides an overview of remotely sensed rainfall, including
satellite sensors and weather radars, precipitation retrieval algorithms, and global
precipitation products. Then we briefly introduce the validation and application of
some typical remotely sensed precipitation products in hydrology, meteorology, and
hazard monitoring and forecast. Finally, we summarize current achievement and
discuss the prospects of global satellite precipitation products.

Spaceborne and Ground-Based Sensors and Precipitation

Retrievals

Review of Precipitation Sensors

Satellite sensors and ground weather radars are two main sources of remotely sensed
rainfall. Satellite sensors include multichannels, such as visible and infrared
(VIS/IR), passive microwave, and active microwave. Infrared sensors are generally
4 Y. Hong et al.

onboard GEO which can provide precipitation estimates with relatively high tem-
poral and spatial resolutions. Infrared data from the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellites (GOES) E/W; the Meteosat 5,7,8; and the Multifunctional
Transport Satellites (MTSAT) have been widely used in various satellite precipita-
tion products. FY-2 is the first generation of meteorological satellites in China, six
geostationary satellites from FY-2A to FY-2F. Currently, FY-2 satellites have pro-
vided large amounts of data of precipitation, land surface, and sea surface temper-
ature (http://fy3.satellite.cma.gov.cn/portalsite/default.aspx). Microwave data can
be applied for more accurate rainfall estimation due to its more direct linkage
with precipitation. The Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) onboard
NOAA 10–12 and Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) onboard Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-13/14/15/16 are all popular passive
microwave data sources.
Satellite-borne sensors are of great importance in estimating precipitation over the
vast majority of the Earth’s surface which lacks adequate in situ observing systems.
Precipitation radars, such as TRMM PR, CloudSat CPR, and GPM DPR, can
estimate precipitation best from space, while the orbit width of the three radars is
very small (from 1.4 km for CPR to ~250 km for PR/DPR). Weather radars can
provide accurate rainfall estimate on the ground. Combination of ground radars and
rain gauges can generate precipitation products of high quality. All those satellite
sensors and ground radars will be introduced detailed below.

Infrared Sensors

The Earth’s surface, clouds, and atmosphere absorb solar energy and emit part of
it into the outer space. The infrared sensors can sense these energies, which are
often carried by GEO satellites, providing IR imagery 24 h a day with a high
resolution (~ 4
4 km). There is an international constellation of GEO satellites
covering the globe (Table 1), among which the Geostationary Operational Environ-
mental Satellite system (GOES) operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) is the primary one.
In the field of meteorology, radiation information collected by the IR sensors
always relates to brightness temperature (Tb) of land surface, water surface, and
cloud top. Most of IR-based rainfall estimation methods try to establish relationship
model between surface rainfall rates and cloud-top brightness temperatures (Arkin
1979; Kummerow et al. 1998). According to the method used in processing the Tb
values for different sensors, IR-based rainfall retrieval algorithms are divided into
three main types, including pixel-based, window-based, and patch-based. The pixel-
based algorithm is one of the most basic methods in satellite rainfall retrieval, and
GOES Precipitation Index (GPI) is the most well-known one of them (Arkin and
Meisner 1987). To improve the accuracy, the initial result is accumulated over a
longer time scale (usually weekly or monthly) (Bastiaanssen et al. 1998; Liang et al.
2001).
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 5

Table 1 Some geostationary satellites and sensors

Resolution
Satellite Agency Sensor Channels (km)
GOES National Oceanic and Atmospheric GOES 5 1–4
E/W Administration (NOAA) I-M
Imager
Meteosat European Organisation for the MVIRI 3–12 1–4
Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites and
(EUMETSAT) SEVIRI
MTSAT/ Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) Imager 5 1–5
Himawari

The autoestimator (AE) algorithm utilizes a power law function to fit the Rainfall-
Tb relationship. Further, researchers developed hydroestimator (HE) algorithm
which takes more feature variables into account, such as relative humidity and
precipitation water (Scofield and Kuligowski 2003). Besides the IR4 and IR5
channels, all other three channels of GOES Imager are used to modify the identifi-
cation of raining clouds (Ba and Gruber 2001). Then, the rainfall rate of each raining
cloud is assigned with the reference of its Tb. The cloud window-based algorithm is
an extension of the pixel-based one. Hsu et al. (1997) developed the Precipitation
Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information Using Artificial Neural Networks
(PERSIANN) system, which relates pixel rainfall rate to a range of the neighborhood
pixel coverage like a window (Hsu et al. 1997). The cloud window-based algorithm
can involve in cloud local texture information based on Tb, making the retrieval
more reasonable than the former two methods.
Cloud-patch-based algorithms extract feature information which may be
related to rainfall rate from the entire cloud coverage. Various cloud segmentation
approaches accompanied by pixel rainfall rate assignment tricks were developed.
The Griffith-Woodley Technique (Griffith et al. 1978) assumes a specific Tb thresh-
old under 253 K to separate cloud from IR Tb imagery. The Convective-Stratiform
Technique (Adler and Negri 1988) firstly screens convective patches according to
the local minimum value of Tb and assigns different rainfall amounts to convective
clouds and stratiform clouds separately. Pixel rainfall rates are proportionally dis-
tributed according to the Tb inside cloud patches. Xu et al. (1999) used SSM/I
microwave rainfall estimation to separate rain and no-rain pixels in a cloud patch,
which made Tb thresholds variable in different situations (Xu et al. 1999). Hong et al.
(2005) developed an automated neural network model named self-organizing non-
linear output (SONO) for patch-based rainfall estimation on the basis of PERSIANN
system (Hong et al. 2005). The SONO model establishes various nonlinear
Tb-Rainfall relations by classifying varied cloud patch into different clusters based
on their extracted features which can be divided into three categories, i.e., coldness,
geometry, and texture. The first category is directly associated with cloud brightness
temperature (i.e., minimum and mean temperature of a cloud patch); the second one
is derived from the geometric properties of cloud patches (i.e., cloud-path size and
shape index); and the third category is the texture variation of cloud brightness
6 Y. Hong et al.

temperature (i.e., standard deviation, mean value of local standard deviation, stan-
dard deviation of local standard deviation, and gradient).
Feature extraction is another important part of cloud-patch-based approaches.
It’s theoretically ideal to include as many features associated with land surface
rainfall as possible. In PERSIANN-CCS system (Hong et al. 2004), nine key feature
indices including the eight indices in Hong et al. (2005) which have been introduced
above and gray image texture were extracted from cloud patches.

Microwave Sensors

Microwave sensors carried by LEO satellites have evolved steadily from the early
Electronically Scanning Microwave Radiometer in the 1970s to the current SSM/I
on DMSP satellites, the AMSU on the NOAA satellite series, the TRMM TMI, the
Aqua Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-Earth Observing System
(AMSR-E) sensors, and the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Microwave
Imager (GMI). However, due to low temporal sampling resolution of passive
microwave (PMW) data, significant coverage gaps exist even merging all of the
available PMW datasets within every 3-h time window.
Rainfall from microwave sensors is estimated based on the principle that
rainfall at the surface is related to microwave emission from raindrops at
low-frequency channels and microwave scattering from ice at high-frequency chan-
nels (Kummerow et al. 1998). The satellite MW-based rainfall estimation algorithms
can be roughly categorized into three classes: (1) the “emission”-type algorithms
(Wilheit et al. 1991), which detect the increased radiances caused by rain over
radiometrically cold oceans using low-frequency channels; (2) the “scattering”
algorithms (Ferraro and Marks 1995), which correlate rainfall to radiance depres-
sions caused by ice scattering present in many precipitating clouds; and (3) the
“multichannel inversion”-type algorithms (Kummerow et al. 2001), which aim at
inverting the entire radiance vector simultaneously.
The TMI as well as the AMSR-E uses the algorithms developed by Wilheit et al.
(1991) and Kummerow et al. (2001), while the SSM/I uses the algorithms developed
by Wilheit et al. (1991) and Ferraro and Marks (1995) in the GPCP over ocean and
land, respectively. Precipitation estimation derived from the Advanced Microwave
Sounding Unit-B (AMSU-B) at the National Environmental Satellite Data and
Information Service (NESDIS) is supported by the algorithm developed by Weng
et al. (2003). Each algorithm appears to have strengths and weaknesses related to
specific applications, because they are optimized for the corresponding satellite
sensor.
NASA GPM Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for GPM (IMERG), an
advancement of TRMM TMPA, is an up-to-date product of global precipitation
estimation. The algorithm used in GPM is transparent, parametric, and unified which
ensures uniform rainfall products across all MW sensors from all satellite platforms.
Huffman et al. (2015) suggests that the algorithm used in IMERG performs careful
intercalibration of microwave estimates and provides finer time and space scales.
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 7

Also, the robust algorithm including a generalized parametric framework which

avoids the impasse of cross-evaluation of previous MW algorithms can attribute the
differences between sensors to physical differences between observed scenes rather
than artifacts of the algorithm.

Ground-Based Weather Radars

In order to address the growing interest in and demand for ground-based weather
radars, this section serves as a guidance toward the understanding of this advanced
instrument and relevant algorithms that constantly provides various kinds of mete-
orological data. The development of weather radars originated from World War II
when radars were invented mainly for the battlefield (Buderi 1996; Brown 1999;
Geiger 2008). With the advent of weather radars, our ability to detect high-resolution
precipitation temporally and spatially has encountered unprecedented improvement,
thus facilitating such application as flash flood forecasting and precipitation estima-
tion (Doswell et al. 1996; Davis 2001; Krajewski and Smith 2002; Delrieu et al.
2005; Smith et al. 2007). For instance, with the radar systems available, not only
regional-scale studies but also global-scale researches can be carried out. Recent
decades have witnessed the invention of ground-based weather radars, enabling us to
perform research and operations much more easily with radars.
Weather radars typically consist of the basic components: a klystron transmitter, a
waveguide, an antenna, the pedestal, a feedhorn, a radome, and a receiver (Rinehart
1991; Doviak 1993). Weather Surveillance Radar-1988 Doppler (WSR-88D) that
constitutes the NEXRAD network in operation across the United States is a widely
used ground-based weather radar (Klazura and Imy 1993). The NEXRAD system is
a network of 160 high-resolution Doppler weather radars operated by the National
Weather Service, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA) within the US Department of Commerce. NEXRAD is capable of
detecting precipitation and atmospheric movement or wind. When processed, the
data returning can be displayed in a mosaic map which showcases patterns of
precipitation and its movement. The greatest benefit of weather radars for hydrology
lies in its potential to estimate rainfall rates at relatively high spatiotemporal resolu-
tion (i.e., 1 km/5 min), in real time, within a radius of approximately 250 km of the
radar. Weather radar has enabled the transformation from a system of manual
reporting and reacting to weather to one of the automated observations and antici-
pating weather impacts.
Steps for computing quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) using conven-
tional, single-polarization radar usually include the following. The first is radar
calibration. The calibration of radar has a major influence on the accuracy of rainfall
rates. A miscalibration of only 1 dB can result in bias in rainfall rates of 15%. Several
methods for calibrating radar are provided in Atlas (2002). The second is quality
control. Now that the Z data (radar reflectivity factor) have been bias-corrected for
radar miscalibration, which requires large samples of comparisons over hours or
even days of precipitation, every single bin of radar data must be carefully
8 Y. Hong et al.

scrutinized to remove deleterious effects from non-meteorological scatters on the

ground, biota in the atmosphere, planes, chaff, etc. The third is precipitation rate
estimation. Calibrated reflectivity values illustrating the size, shape, state, and
concentration of the hydrometeors within the radar sampling volume are used
subsequently to compute precipitation rate. In regions with complex terrain, bins
are selected at multiple elevation angles to construct the hybrid scan for QPE.
Reflectivity from the hybrid scan has made it possible to compute
two-dimensional fields of precipitation rate in spherical coordinates (range, azi-
muth). The general form of reflectivity-to-rainfall relationships, or Z-R equations,
is a power law as

Z ¼ aRb

where a is the prefactor and b is the exponent. The two most common Z-R
relations are the NEXRAD default for convection (a = 300, b = 1.4) and the
Marshall-Palmer relation (a = 200, b = 1.6) generally applied to stratiform rain
(Marshall and Palmer 1948).

Global Multi-satellite Precipitation Products

Overview

A single sensor or single satellite can hardly provide global precipitation products
with satisfying quality. Therefore, researchers have increasingly moved toward
combining data from GEO VIS/IR and LEO MW sensors (Huffman et al. 2015;
Wanders et al. 2015; Ashouri et al. 2015). A lot of such multi-satellite precipitation
products have been developed and released to the public which are characterized by
free access, quasi-global coverage, fine spatiotemporal resolutions, and continuous
self-renewal, which, in turn, promote their development and applications (Tang et al.
2016b). The most commonly used satellite global rain products are summarized in
Table 2. Most products provide both near-real-time and post-real-time datasets to
satisfy different timeliness and quality requirement in climatology, meteorology,
hydrology, hazard forecast, etc. Compared with the information listed in Hong
et al. (2012), the resolutions, periods, and accuracy of those products have been
increased significantly in just a few years indicating the rapid advance of satellite
remotely sensed precipitation. For example, the most recent IMERG products of the
GPM mission are built on previous algorithms from PERSIANN-CCS, TMPA, and
CMORPH which can provide three products at 30-min and 0.1 resolution between
60 N-S. Here we briefly introduce the algorithms and products of the three typical
mainstream satellite precipitation products of PERSIANN-CCS, TMPA, and
IMERG due to their widespread applications.
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 9

Table 2 Summary of global satellite rainfall products

Spatial Temporal
Product name Agency/country resolution resolution Period
GPCP NASA/USA 2.5 Monthly 1979–present
CMAP NOAA/UAS 2.5 5-day 1979–present
TMPA NASA GSFC/USA 0.25 3-hourly 1998–present
CMORPH NOAA CPC/USA 0.25 /8 km 3-hourly/30- 1998–present
min
PERSIANN University of Arizona/USA 0.25 3-hourly 2000–present
PERSIANN- University of California 4 km 30-min 2006–present
CCS Irvine/USA
PERSIANN- NOAA/USA 0.25 Daily 1983–present
CDR
GSMaP JAXA/Japan 0.1 30-min 2014–present
IMERG NASA/USA 0.1 30-min 2014–present

PERSIANN-CCS Algorithm

Through extracting local and regional cloud features from infrared (10.7 μm) geo-
stationary satellite imagery, with microwave and ground radar rainfall data blending
or training, the PERSIANN-CCS algorithm can provide fine-scale (4 km and
30-min) rainfall distribution. As shown in Fig. 1, the PERSIANN-CCS algorithm
processes satellite cloud images into pixel rain rates by following four steps:

1. Segmentation of Satellite Infrared Cloud Images

The incremental temperature threshold (ITT) is proposed to effectively segment
cloud images which contain several convective cells into a large number of
separated cloud patches by gradually increasing threshold temperatures. The
ITT algorithm contains two main steps. First, the algorithm locates the local
minimum temperature and initializes seeds. Second, the threshold temperature
is set higher, and seeded regions are expanded from the seeded points until the
border of other seeded regions or cloud-free regions is reached.
2. Extraction of Cloud-Patch Features
A feature extraction scheme that retrieves both local pixel temperature textures
and regional cloud-patch features instead of only local pixel features as in
PERSIANN. Coldness, geometry, and texture are used to discriminate cloud
types. Specifically, the coldness features of cloud patch include the minimum
and mean temperature of a cloud patch; the geometric features include cloud-
patch area and cloud-path shape index; and the texture features include standard
deviation of cloud-patch temperature, mean value of local standard deviation of
cloud temperature, standard deviation of local standard deviation of cloud,
gradient of cloud-top brightness temperature, and gray image texture.
3. Classification of Cloud Patches
The clouds are classified into different groups based on the cloud-patch features
extracted from different temperature levels by a clustering algorithm, the self-
10 Y. Hong et al.

Fig. 1 Satellite cloud image segmentation, feature extraction, classification, multisensor blending,
and rainfall estimation of the PERSIANN-CCS algorithm. (From Hong et al. (2012))

organizing feature map (SOFM) (Hsu et al. 1997). SOFM projects the high-
dimensional classification space of many input variables into various clusters
arranged in a two-dimensional coordinate. Two main steps are involved. First, the
distance between patch features and SOFM cluster center is calculated. Second,
the best matching SOFM cluster center from the minimum distance between the
input vector and the SORM connection weights is found.
4. Estimation of Patch and Pixel Rainfall
Instead of calibrating only one Tb-R function for all clouds in PERSIANN, the
PERSIANN-CCS searches a nonlinear Tb-R relationship for the full spectrum of
cloud-rainfall conditions. Therefore, PERSIANN-CCS overcomes the limitation
of a single statistical Tb-R function and can generate various rain rates at a given
brightness temperature and variable rain/no-rain IR thresholds for different cloud
types. In each classified cloud-patch group, the probability matching method is
used to redistribute the Tb-R pixel pairs so that the proportion of the R distribution
above a given rain rate is equal to the proportion of the Tb distribution below the
associated Tb threshold value (Atlas et al. 1990). Then a nonlinear exponential
function is fitted to the redistributed pixels, whose parameters are calibrated by
numerous GOES infrared images and their collocated gauge-corrected radar
rainfall.
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 11

The PERSIANN-CCS algorithm provides pixel rainfall distribution as well as

cloud-rainfall system analysis basing on real-time GOES cloud images (Hong et al.
2004). Afterward, an automated neural network for cloud-patch-based rainfall esti-
mation, entitled SONO (Hong et al. 2005), was developed to adjust the Tb-R
mapping function by using passive microwave precipitation estimates from low
Earth orbiting satellite platforms, such as TRMM and Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program. Evaluated at various temporal and spatial scales, PERSIANN-
CCS shows good performance of estimation accuracy both in rain intensity and in
the detection of rain/no-rain pixels (Hong et al. 2004, 2005, 2007). Real-time data
from the current version of PERSIANN-CCS are available online both at regional
and global scales (http://chrsdata.eng.uci.edu/).

TRMM-Based Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis Algorithm

TMPA provides a calibration-based sequential scheme for combining precipitation

estimates from multiple satellites, as well as gauge analyses where feasible, at
0.25
0.25 and 3-hourly resolutions (Huffman et al. 2007). The TMPA provides
a real-time product (3B42RT) and a gauge-adjusted post-real-time research product
(3B42V7). The TMPA estimates are produced in four stages: (1) the MW precipi-
tation estimates are calibrated and combined; (2) the IR precipitation estimates are
created using the calibrated MW precipitation; (3) the MW and IR estimates are
combined; and (4) the rain gauge data are incorporated.
Sources of passive microwave satellite precipitation estimates include TRMM
TMI, SSM/I, Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) (3B42V7 only),
AMSR-E, AMSU-B, and Microwave Humidity Sounder (MHS). The real-time
product, 3B42RT, uses TMI estimates as the initial RT calibrator to calibrate
precipitation estimates derived from available LEO MW radiometers and then
merges all of the estimates at 3-h intervals. Gaps in the analyses are filled with
GEO IR data regionally calibrated to the merged MW product. The post-real-time
product, 3B42V7, adjusts the monthly accumulations of the 3-hourly fields from
3B42RT based on a monthly gauge analysis, including the new Global Precipitation
Climatology Centre (GPCC) “full” gauge analysis whenever available and the
GPCC “monitoring” gauge analysis since 2010. However, the previous monitoring
product encompasses periods up to April 2005, and the Climate Assessment and
Monitoring System (CAMS) analysis is used thereafter (Huffman et al. 2010). The
final step of creating the research product is to introduce monthly rain gauge data.
The monthly ratio of the satellite-only and satellite-gauge combination is used to
rescale the individual 3-hourly estimates.
The TMPA intended to provide the “best” estimate of quasi-global precipitation.
The most successful use of the TMPA data is that the analysis takes advantage of the
fine-scale data to create time/space averages appropriate to the user’s application.
However, TMPA has some aspects that need to be improved which include improved
error estimation and extension to higher latitudes (Li et al. 2009; Yong et al. 2013,
12 Y. Hong et al.

2014; Tang et al. 2016a, 2016b). After about 17 years of productive data gathering,
the instruments on TRMM were turned off on April 8, 2015.

Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for GPM

The GPM mission has an international constellation of satellites, including one Core
Observatory satellite and approximately ten partner satellites. The GPM Core
Observatory was deployed on February 28, 2014, by a joint effort of NASA and
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), marking a transition from the
TRMM era to the GPM era. The GPM Core Observatory carries the DPR (the
Ku-band at 13.6 GHz and Ka-band at 35.5 GHz) and GMI (frequencies range
between 10 and 183 GHz). GPM extends the sensor package compared to TRMM
instruments with the single-frequency PR (the Ku-band at 13.8 GHz) and TMI
(frequencies range between 10 and 85.5 GHz). IMERG is a unified US algorithm,
which is intended to intercalibrate, merge, and interpolate all microwave estimates of
the GPM constellation, IR estimates, gauge observations, and other data from
potential sensors at 0.1
0.1 and half-hour temporal resolutions (Huffman et al.
2015). IMERG provides three kinds of products, including the near-real-time
“Early” and “Late” run products, and the post-real-time “Final” run product.
IMERG combines intermittent precipitation estimates from all constellation micro-
wave sensors, IR-based observations from geosynchronous satellites, and monthly
gauge precipitation data (Hou et al. 2014). IMERG employs the 2014 version of the
Goddard Profiling Algorithm (GPROF2014) to compute precipitation estimates
from all passive microwave (PMW) sensors onboard GPM satellites, which is an
improvement compared with TMPA (GPROF2010) (Huffman et al. 2015). The
IMERG “Final” run combines the GPCC Monitoring Product (currently Version 4)
in the product, whose data source is limited to the Global Telecommunications
System (GTS) with only about 7000 stations over the globe. The Full Data
Reanalysis (currently Version 6) involves much more stations than the Monitoring
Product but only covers the period 1901–2010. It is anticipated that the IMERG
datasets would be reprocessed using the Full Data Reanalysis when it is updated to a
longer period (Huffman et al. 2015). The IMERG data can be downloaded from the
PMM website (http://pmm.nasa.gov/data-access/downloads/gpm). The IMERG
product has been proved to be better than the previous TMPA products by some
latest studies which will be introduced in detail in following sections.

Validation and Applications of Remote Sensing Precipitation

Regional and Global Assessment

The performance of Day-1 Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM IMERG

and its predecessor, TRMM 3B42V7, was cross-evaluated using data from the best-
available hourly gauge network over the Tibetan Plateau (TP) (Ma et al. 2016).
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 13

IMERG Final run was used. Analyses of 3-hourly rainfall estimates in the warm
season of 2014 reveal that IMERG shows appreciably better correlations and lower
errors than 3B42V7, though with very similar spatial patterns for all assessment
indicators. IMERG also appears to detect light rainfall better than 3B42V7.
However, IMERG shows the slightly lower probability of detection (POD) than
3B42V7 for elevations above 4200 m. Both IMERG and 3B42V7 successfully
capture the northward dynamic life cycle of the Indian monsoon reasonably well
over the TP. In particular, the relatively light rain from early and end Indian monsoon
moisture surge events often fails to be captured by the sparsely distributed gauges.
In spite of limited snowfall field observations, IMERG shows the potential of
detecting solid precipitation, which cannot be retrieved from the 3B42V7 products
(Fig. 2).
In addition, we also compare IMERG and 3B42V7 products over Mainland
China using hourly rain data from around 2400 rain gauges (Tang et al. 2016b).
The point gauge data are interpolated to areal precipitation field using the inverse
distance weight (IDW) method. Both products agree well with the gauge data over
East and South Mainland China. However, the correlation coefficient (CC) was a
little lower over North China and even under 0.2 over West China. Several factors
could contribute to relatively low CC of IMERG and 3B42V7 products over such
areas: (1) the topography and climate over West China are complex, posing a great
challenge for accurate satellite precipitation estimation; (2) the IMERG Final run
was corrected using GPCC, whereas few gauges are used in the production of GPCC
monthly gauge analysis in the TP, and thus the quality of IMERG products is
potentially degraded; and (3) the interpolated precipitation could deviate far from
the real values due to the sparse gauge networks, which would reduce reliability of
metrics calculated against such ground reference. Figure 3 shows spatial distribu-
tions of CC, bias ratio (BIAS), and critical success index (CSI) computed from
IMERG and 3B42V7 products against IDW interpolated precipitation at 3-hourly
and 0.1
0.1 resolutions over Mainland China. The distribution of CC seemed
better for 3B42V7 than IMERG at the 3-hourly resolution (Fig. 3a–b). But at the
daily resolution, IMERG performs better than 3B42V7 in North China.
The Coupled Routing and Excess Storage (CREST) model (Wang et al. 2011) is
developed by the University of Oklahoma (http://hydro.ou.edu) and the NASA
SERVIR Project Team (www.servir.net). The CREST model has been implemented
successfully in a variety of multi-scale meteorological and hydrological studies
(Tang et al. 2016c; Kan et al. 2017; Li et al. 2017). The CREST V2.1 (Shen et al.
2016) is used to evaluate the quality of IMERG as well as its hydrological continuity
compared with TRMM era products (TMPA 3B42V7 and 3B42RT) in the Ganjiang
River basin, which is the seventh largest sub-catchment of the Yangtze River. The
China Gauge-based Daily Precipitation Analysis (CGDPA) product is used as the
ground truth (Shen and Xiong 2016).
In the validation period (May 1, 2014–September 30, 2014), the CREST model
was forced by CGDPA, 3B42V7, 3B42RT, and IMERG precipitation data based on
parameter calibrated by CGDPA from 2003 to 2009. CGDPA has the best skill
scores in terms of streamflow simulation as expected, closely followed by IMERG
14 Y. Hong et al.

Fig. 2 Maps of (a–b) relative bias (RB), (c–d) root mean square error (RMSE), (e–f) correlation
coefficients (CC), and (g–h) scatter diagram between satellite- and gauge-based 3-hourly rainfall
estimates in the warm season (April–September) of 2014 over the TP. Notes: the left panel, i.e., (a,
c, e, g), stands for IMERG rainfall estimates, and the right panel, i.e., (b, d, f, h) stands for 3B42V7
products. (From Ma et al. 2016)

(IMERG/CGDPA: NSCE = 0.77/0.86, CC = 0.91/0.94, BIAS = 14.09/8.76%,

and RMSE = 1080.87/822.73m3/s). The hydrograph of IMERG is remarkably
similar to that of CGDPA (Fig. 4a and b). Compared with 3B42V7 and 3B42RT,
IMERG performed the best and matched well with the observed streamflow, espe-
cially for the second flow peak compared with 3B42V7 and 3B42RT (Fig. 4b–d).
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 15

IMERG 3B42V7
Boundary
(a) (b)
50° N

50° N
CC
<0.2
0.2~0.25
40° N

40° N
0.25~0.3
0.3~0.35
0.35~0.4
30° N

30° N
0.4~0.45
0.45~0.5
20° N

20° N
0.5~0.55
0.55~0.6
>0.6
80° E 90° E 100° E 110° E 120° E 130° E 80° E 90° E 100° E 110° E 120° E 130° E

(d) Boundary
(c)

50° N
50° N

BIAS (%)
<-75
40° N -75~-50
40° N

-50~-25
-25~-10
30° N
30° N

-10~10
10~25
25~50
20° N
20° N

50~75
>75

80° E 90° E 100° E 110° E 120° E 130° E 80° E 90° E 100° E 110° E 120° E 130° E

(e) (f) Boundary

50° N

50° N

CSI
<0.1
0.1~0.15
40° N

40° N

0.15~0.2
0.2~0.25
30° N

30° N

0.25~0.3
0.3~0.35
0.35~0.4
20° N

20° N

0.4~0.45
>0.45

80° E 90° E 100° E 110° E 120° E 130° E 80° E 90° E 100° E 110° E 120° E 130° E

Fig. 3 Spatial distributions of assessment metrics for IMERG (the left panel) and 3B42V7 (the
right panel) precipitation at 3-hourly and 0.1
0.1 resolution over Mainland China: (a–b) CC,
(c–d) BIAS, and (e–f) CSI. (From Tang et al. 2016a)

The 3B42RT product came at the bottom as its NSCE declined to 0.46 and RMSE
increased to 1637.53 m3/s.
The accuracy of satellite precipitation products varies with regions. Therefore,
although regional validation studies can help reveal the error characteristics of some
satellite products, global evaluation and comparison are necessary. Beck et al. (2017)
evaluated the performance of 23 precipitation products in the global scale using
76,086 gauges worldwide. A conceptual hydrological model HBV is employed to
evaluate the ten gauge-corrected datasets in 9053 small- to medium-sized basins to
avoid the independence problem caused by overlapped gauges. However, it is hard
for researchers to obtain worldwide ground observations. Massari et al. (2017) uses
the triple collocation (TC) method to characterize uncertainties of satellite precipi-
tation products in the globe. The TC method requires the input of three independent
datasets and can output the error statistics of input datasets. In addition, some studies
16 Y. Hong et al.

12000 0

Precipitation (mm/day)
10000 (b) IMERG 50
Streamflow (m /s)

(a) CGDPA
3

8000 100
6000 150
4000 200
2000 250
300
May Jun Jul Aug Sep May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2014 2014
Time Series (day) Time Series (day)
12000 0

Precipitation (mm/day)
10000 (c) 3B42V7 50
Streamflow (m /s)

(d) 3B42RT
3

8000 100
6000 150
4000 200
2000 250
0 300
May Jun Jul Aug Sep May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2014 2014
Time Series (day) Time Series (day)
Observed Runoff Simulated Runoff Precipitation

Fig. 4 Comparison of CREST simulated streamflow with gauge-calibrated parameters and

observed streamflow validation period 2 (May 1, 2014–September 30, 2014). (a) Daily data from
CGDPA; (b) daily data from IMERG; (c) daily data from 3B42V7; and (d) daily data from 3B42RT.
(From Tang et al. 2016c)

try to evaluate satellite precipitation products by using data from spaceborne radars
as the benchmark due to their high accuracy than passive microwave and infrared
sensors. For example, Behrangi et al. (2014) evaluated the capability of spaceborne
sensors in detecting light precipitation and snowfall using CloudSat Cloud Profiling
Radar (CPR). Tang et al. (2017) intercompared the rainfall and snowfall performance
of the three existing spaceborne precipitation radars, i.e., TRMM PR, GPM DPR,
and CloudSat CPR.

Application in Flood Detection and Prediction

Satellite precipitation products can be applied in hydrologic studies to predict

flood events (Khan et al. 2011). Wang et al. (2011) established a real-time Global
Hydrological Prediction System (GHPS) with the CREST model to investigate the
detectability and predictability of flooding (Fig. 5). GHPS is forced by the NASA
Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis
at near-real-time and by the deterministic and ensemble precipitation forecast prod-
ucts from NOAA Global Forecast System (GFS) at several lead times (Zhang et al.
2015). The CREST model is currently running within the near-real-time global
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 17

Fig. 5 Structure of the Global Hydrological Prediction System. (From Zhang et al. 2015)

hydrological simulation and flood monitoring demonstration system (http://eos.ou.

edu) at the University of Oklahoma. Presently, it is driven by the TRMM 3B42RT.
Another global flood system is Global Flood Monitoring System (GFMS; http://
flood.umd.edu/) (Wu et al. 2014) which is supported by TMPA and GPM products.
GFMS has played an important role in flood monitoring and can be utilized for
decision support (Kirschbaum et al. 2017).
Floods usually lead to huge casualties and damages to urban areas due to its high
population density and intensively developed infrastructure. Moreover, the imper-
vious surface in urban areas would also increase the runoff rate. Thus, it is an
emergency to predict urban to reduce their impacts. For example, the flood event
on July 21, 2012, in Beijing, the Capital City of China, is detected and predicted by
the GHPS. The “721” Beijing storm lasted for around 16 h, and the rain rate reached
as high as 215 mm/day in the urban areas, resulting in 79 fatalities and around 1.6
billion dollars of damages. We used rain gauge observations, TRMM RT, TRMM
V7, and both GFS deterministic and ensemble precipitation forecasts at different
initializations (with different lead times, as in Table 3) to simulate the hydrological
predictions of surface runoff in urban areas and streamflow in the watersheds in
Beijing. Before the simulation, soil states in the global CREST model are initialized
by running the model using TRMM RT rainfall forcing from July 1, 2012, until the
initial time of each experiment. Results indicate that the disastrous “721” storm was
detectable by TRMM satellite precipitation estimates and predictable by determin-
istic GFS rainfall forecasts at least 4 days in advance.
In flash flood warning and forecasting, remotely sensed rainfall can provide
useful information to determine when and how to make alerts and take evacuation
actions. Based on the widely used Flash Flood Guidance (FFG) system
(Georgakakos 1987), we developed a Cascading Flash Flood Guidance (CFFG)
18 Y. Hong et al.

Table 3 Summary of characteristics of the precipitation products used in the detecting and
predicting of the “721” Beijing eventa
Spatial Lead
Rainfall products resolution Time interval time Reference
Rain Gauge Interpolated Hourly; then N/A Huffman et al.
Observation onto 0.25 accumulated to 2007
3-hourly
TRMM RT 0.25 3-hourly N/A
TRMM RP 0.25 3-hourly N/A
Deterministic GFS 0.25 3-hourly 180 h Wang 2010; Wang
Precipitation et al. 2013
Ensemble GFS 0.25 3-hourly 168 h
Precipitation
a
From Zhang et al. (2015)

system, progressively from the Flash Flood Potential Index (FFPI), the Flash Flood
Hazard Index (FFHI), and the Flash Flood Risk Index (FFRI) (Zeng et al. 2006).
Together with the land cover, vegetation cover, SRTM slope, and soil property data
for the FFPI calculation, average daily amount in flood seasons and maximum 6 h
and maximum 24 h amount from TRMM V7 are used as rainfall effect indicators to
determine the relative hazard potential of flash flood, which is represented by the
value of FFHI (ranging from 1 to 10, 1 means lowest potential and 10 the highest).
The weights between indicators are determined by an integrated approach of the
analytic hierarchy process and the information entropy theory. Further inclusion of
GDP, population, and flood prevention measures as vulnerability factors for the
FFRI enables the prediction of the flash flood risk. Until now, the CFFG system has
been implemented in a fine resolution (1 km) in Yunnan Province, and the charac-
teristics of China’s flash floods are also mapped in a cascading manner.

Conclusive Remarks and Outlooks

The rapid development of remote sensing techniques has made precipitation esti-
mation more accurate and cover broader regions compared with traditional rain
gauges around the world. Satellite-based precipitation products supported by
VIS/IR and passive/active MW sensors promote our knowledge of global water
and energy cycle. Currently, the newest GPM based on the heritage of precedent
multi-satellite algorithms such as TMPA, CMORPH, and PERSIANN-CCS has
released its Level-1 to Level-3 data to the public for more than 2 years. The Level-
4 products combining with models are also anticipated to be developed and released
in the future, and the spatial coverage could be extended to near 90 N/S compared
with 60 N/S of current products. However, satellite precipitation products still have
some way to go in further improving its quality in high mountains (such as the TP),
high latitude regions, and arid regions.
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 19

Active microwave sensors can estimate precipitation with comparable quality

with ground gauges and radars. However, after the TRMM PR was decommissioned,
only two precipitation radars operate in space. The future development of
spaceborne radars has two complementary directions, multi-frequency radar instru-
ments on single platform and constellation of many small to cube radar satellites, for
improved global precipitation estimation. The employment of more spaceborne
radar data is the future trend of achieving accurate enough estimation of global
rainfall and snowfall only based on satellites. In addition, future radar design should
consider including more bands on a single platform, such as Ka-, Ku-, and W-bands.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has developed an architecture with a low-cost
simplified spaceborne radar system, namely, RainCube (Peral et al. 2015). The
inexpensive CubeSats can compose a constellation with a number of satellites
monitoring the earth frequently. Together with the advanced but expensive big
spaceborne radars, estimation of global rainfall and snowfall can be greatly
improved.

Acknowledgment This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (Grant No. 71461010701), National Key Research and Development Program
of China (2016YFE0102400), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 91437214).

References
R.F. Adler, A.J. Negri, A satellite infrared technique to estimate tropical convective and stratiform
rainfall. J. Appl. Meteorol. 27, 30–51 (1988)
P.A. Arkin, The relationship between fractional coverage of high cloud and rainfall accumulations
during GATE over the B-scale array. Mon. Weather Rev. 107(10), 1382–1387 (1979)
P.A. Arkin, B.N. Meisner, The relationship between large-scale convective rainfall and cold cloud
over the western hemisphere during 1982–84. Mon. Weather Rev. 115, 51–74 (1987)
H. Ashouri, K.L. Hsu, S. Sorooshian, et al., PERSIANN-CDR: Daily precipitation climate
data record from multisatellite observations for hydrological and climate studies. J. Bull.
Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96(1), 69–83 (2015)
D. Atlas, Radar calibration: Some simple approaches. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83(9), 1313 (2002)
D. Atlas, D. Rosenfeld, D.B. Wolff, Climatologically tuned reflectivity-rain rate relations and links
to area-time integrals. J. Appl. Meteorol. 29, 1120–1135 (1990)
M. Ba, A. Gruber, GOES multispectral rainfall algorithm (GMSRA). J. Appl. Meteorol. 40,
1500–1514 (2001)
W.G.M. Bastiaanssen, H. Pelgrum, J. Wang, et al., A remote sensing surface energy balance
algorithm for land (SEBAL): Part 2: Validation. J. Hydrol. 212, 213–229 (1998)
H.E. Beck et al., Global-scale evaluation of 23 precipitation datasets using gauge observations and
hydrological modeling. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 1–23 (2017)
A. Behrangi et al., What does CloudSat reveal about global land precipitation detection by other
spaceborne sensors? Water Resour. Res. 50(6), 4893–4905 (2014)
A. Berne, G. Delrieu, J.D. Creutin, C. Obled, et al., Temporal and spatial resolution of rainfall
measurements required for urban hydrology. J. Hydrol. 299(3–4), 166–179 (2004)
L. Brown, A radar history of World War II. J. Am. Hist. Res. (1999)
20 Y. Hong et al.

R. Buderi, The Invention that Changed the World: How a Small Group of Radar Pioneers Won
the Second World War and Launched a Technological Revolution (Simon and Schuster,
New York, 1996)
R.S. Davis, Flash flood forecast and detection methods, in Severe Convective Storms, (American
Meteorological Society, Boston, 2001), pp. 481–525
G. Delrieu, J. Nicol, E. Yates, et al., The catastrophic flash-flood event of 8–9 September 2002 in
the Gard region, France: A first case study for the Cévennes–Vivarais Mediterranean Hydro-
meteorological Observatory. J. Hydrometeorol. 6(1), 34–52 (2005)
C.A. Doswell, H.E. Brooks, R.A. Maddox, Flash flood forecasting: An ingredients-based method-
ology. J. Weather Forecast. 11(4), 560–581 (1996)
R.J. Doviak, Doppler Radar and Weather Observations (Courier Corporation, Chelmsford, 1993)
L.H.Z.P.N. Fang, H.S.Z.X.G. Runsheng, X. Bao, China operational weather radar data processing
system. J. Appl. Meteorlol. 6, 014 (2002)
F. Farbry, A. Bellon, M.R. Duncan, G.L. Austin, et al., High resolution rainfall measurements by
radar for very small basins: The sampling problem reexamined. J. Hydrol. 161(1–4), 415–428
(1994)
R. Ferraro, G. Marks, The development of SSM/I rain-rate retrieval algorithms using ground-based
radar measurements. J. Atmos. Ocean Technol. 12(4), 755–770 (1995)
R.L. Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War
II (Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 2008)
K.P. Georgakakos, Real-time flash flood prediction. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 92(D8), 9615–9629
(1987)
C.G. Griffith, W.L. Woodley, P.G. Grube, D.W. Martin, J. Stout, D.N. Sikdar, Rain estimation
from geosynchronous satellite imagery-visible and infrared studies. Mon.Weather Rev. 106,
1153–1171 (1978)
D. Harris, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, K. Droegemeier, et al., Multiscale statistical properties of a high-
resolution precipitation forecast. J. Hydrometeorol. 2(4), 406–418 (2001)
W.H. Heiss, D.L. McGrew, D. Sirmans, et al., NEXRAD: Next generation weather radar
(WSR-88D). J. Microwave 33(1), 79–89 (1990)
Y. Hong, K.L. Hsu, S. Sorooshian, et al., Precipitation estimation from remotely sensed imagery
using an artificial neural network cloud classification system. J. Appl. Meteorol. 43, 1834–1853
(2004)
Y. Hong, K. Hsu, S. Sorooshian, et al., Self-organizing nonlinear output (SONO): A neural network
suitable for cloud patch–based rainfall estimation at small scales. Water Resour. Res. 41,
477–490 (2005)
Y. Hong, D. Gochis, J. Cheng, et al., Evaluation of PERSIANN-CCS rainfall measurement using
the NAME event rain gauge network. J. Hydrometeorol. 8, 469–482 (2007)
Y. Hong, S. Chen, X. Xue, G. Hodges, Global precipitation estimation and applications, in
Multiscale Hydrologic Remote Sensing: Perspectives and Applications, (CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 2012), pp. 371–386
Y. Hong, Y. Zhang, S. Khan, Hydrologic Remote Sensing: Capacity Building for Sustainability and
Resilience CRC Press, (2016)
A.Y. Hou, R.K. Kakar, S. Neeck, A.A. Azarbarzin, C.D. Kummerow, M. Kojima, . . . T. Iguchi, The
global precipitation measurement mission. J. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95(5), 701–722 (2014)
K. Hsu, X. Gao, S. Sorooshian, H.V. Gupta, Precipitation estimation from remotely sensed
information using artificial neural networks. J. Appl. Meteorol. 36, 1176–1190 (1997)
G.J. Huffman, D.T. Bolvin, E.J. Nelkin, D.B. Wolff, R.F. Adler, G. Gu, . . . E.F. Stocker, The
TRMM multisatellite precipitation analysis (TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear, combined-sensor
precipitation estimates at fine scales. J. Hydrometeorol. 8, 38–55 (2007)
G.J. Huffman, R.F. Adler, D.T. Bolvin, E.J. Nelkin, The TRMM multi-satellite precipitation
analysis (TMPA), in Satellite Rainfall Applications for Surface Hydrology, (Springer Nether-
lands, Dordrecht, 2010), pp. 3–22
Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 21

G.J. Huffman, D.T. Bolvin, E.J. Nelkin, Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG)
Technical Documentation. NASA/GSFC Code 612, 47 pp. http://pmm.nasa.gov/sites/default/
files/document_files/IMERG_doc.pdf (2015)
R.J. Joyce, J.E. Janowiak, P.A. Arkin, P. Xie, CMORPH: A method that produces global precip-
itation estimates from passive microwave and infrared data at high spatial and temporal
resolution. J. Hydrometeorol. 5(3), 487–503 (2004)
G. Kan, G. Tang, Y. Yang, Y. Hong, J. Li, L. Ding, et al., An improved coupled routing and excess
storage (CREST) distributed hydrological model and its verification in Ganjiang River basin,
China. Water 9(11), 904 (2017)
I.S. Khan et al., Satellite remote sensing and hydrologic modeling for flood inundation mapping in
Lake Victoria basin: Implications for hydrologic prediction in ungauged basins. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens. 49, 85–95 (2011)
C. Kidd, G. Huffman, Global precipitation measurement. Meteorol. Appl. 18, 334–353 (2011)
D.B. Kirschbaum, G.J. Huffman, R.F. Adler, S. Braun, K. Garrett, E. Jones, et al., NASA’s remotely
sensed precipitation: A reservoir for applications users. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 98(6),
1169–1184 (2017)
G.E. Klazura, D.A. Imy, A description of the initial set of analysis products available from the
NEXRAD WSR-88D system. J. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 74(7), 1293–1311 (1993)
W.F. Krajewski, J.A. Smith, Radar hydrology: Rainfall estimation. J. Adv. Water Resour. 25(8–12),
1387–1394 (2002)
T. Kubota, S. Shige, H. Hashizume, K. Aonashi, N. Takahashi, S. Seto, . . . K. Iwanami. Global
precipitation map using satellite-borne microwave radiometers by the GSMaP project: Produc-
tion and validation. IEEE T. Geosci. Remote. 45(7), 2259–2275 (2007)
C. Kummerow, W. Barnes, T. Kozu, et al., The tropical rainfall measuring mission (TRMM) sensor
package. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 15(3), 809–817 (1998)
C. Kummerow, Y. Hong, W. Olson, et al., The evolution of the Goddard Profiling Algorithm
(GPROF) for rainfall estimation from passive microwave sensors. J. Appl. Meteorol. 40(11),
1801–1820 (2001)
L. Li, Y. Hong, J. Wang, et al., Evaluation of the real-time TRMM-based multi-satellite precipitation
analysis for an operational flood prediction system in Nzoia Basin, Lake Victoria, Africa. J. Nat.
Hazards 50(1), 109–123 (2009)
N. Li, G. Tang, P. Zhao, Y. Hong, Y. Gou, K. Yang, Statistical assessment and hydrological utility of
the latest multi-satellite precipitation analysis IMERG in Ganjiang River basin. Atmos. Res.
183, 212–223 (2017)
L. Liang, C. Liu, Y.Q. Xu, et al., Real-time texture synthesis by patch-based sampling. J. ACM
Trans. Graphics (ToG) 20(3), 127–150 (2001)
Y. Ma, G. Tang, D. Long, B. Yong, L. Zhong, W. Wan, Y. Hong, Similarity and error
intercomparison of the GPM and its predecessor-TRMM multisatellite precipitation analysis
using the best available hourly gauge network over the Tibetan plateau. Remote Sens. 8(7),
569 (2016)
J.S. Marshall, W.M.K. Palmer, The distribution of raindrops with size. J. Meteor. 5(4), 165–166
(1948)
C. Massari et al., An assessment of the performance of global rainfall estimates without ground-
based observations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21(9), 4347–4361 (2017)
J. Morin, D. Rosenfeld, E. Amitai, et al., Radar rain field evaluation and possible use of its high
temporal and spatial resolution for hydrological purposes. J. Hydrol. 172(1–4), 275–292 (1995)
E. Peral, S. Tanelli, Z. Haddad, et al., Raincube: A proposed constellation of precipitation
profiling radars in CubeSat, in C. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS),
2015 I.E. International, (IEEE, 2015), Milan, Italy, pp. 1261–1264
R.E. Rinehart, Radar for Meteorologists (University of North Dakota, Office of the President,
1991). Grand Forks, North Dakota
R.A. Scofield, R.J. Kuligowski, Status and outlook of operational satellite precipitation algorithms
for extreme-precipitation events. Mon. Weather Rev. 18, 1037–1051 (2003)
22 Y. Hong et al.

Y. Shen, A. Xiong, Validation and comparison of a new gauge-based precipitation analysis over
mainland China. Int. J. Climatol. 36(1), 252–265 (2016)
X. Shen, Y. Hong, K. Zhang, Z. Hao, Refining a distributed linear reservoir routing method to
improve performance of the CREST model. J. Hydrol. Eng. 22, 04016061 (2016)
A.I. Shiklomanov, R.B. Lammers, C.J. Vörösmarty, Widespread decline in hydrological monitoring
threatens pan-arctic research. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. 83(2), 13–17 (2002)
J. Simpson, R.F. Adler, G.R. North, A proposed tropical rainfall measuring mission (TRMM)
satellite. J. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 69(3), 278–295 (1988)
J.A. Smith, M.L. Baeck, K.L. Meierdiercks, et al., Radar rainfall estimation for flash flood
forecasting in small urban watersheds. J. Adv. Water Resour. 30(10), 2087–2097 (2007)
T.M. Smith, V. Lakshmanan, G.J. Stumpf, et al., Multi-radar multi-sensor (MRMS) severe weather
and aviation products: Initial operating capabilities. J. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97(9), 1617–1630
(2016)
S. Sorooshian, K.L. Hsu, X. Gao, H.V. Gupta, B. Imam, D. Braithwaite, Evaluation of PERSIANN
system satellite-based estimates of tropical rainfall. Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc. 81(9), 2035–2046
(2000)
E. Stokstad, Scarcity of rain, stream gages threatens forecasts. Science 285(5431), 1199–1200
(1999)
G. Tang, Y. Ma, D. Long, L. Zhong, Y. Hong, Evaluation of GPM Day-1 IMERG and TMPA
Version-7 legacy products over mainland China at multiple spatiotemporal scales. J. Hydrol.
533, 152–167 (2016a)
G. Tang, D. Long, Y. Hong, Systematic anomalies over inland water bodies of High Mountain Asia
in TRMM precipitation estimates: No longer a problem for the GPM era? IEEE Geosci. Remote
Sens. 13, 1762 (2016b)
G. Tang, Z. Zeng, D. Long, X. Guo, B. Yong, W. Zhang, Y. Hong, Statistical and hydrological
comparisons between TRMM and GPM Level-3 products over a Midlatitude Basin: Is Day-1
IMERG a good successor for TMPA 3B42V7? J. Hydrometeorol. 17(1), 121–137 (2016c)
G. Tang et al., Similarities and differences between three coexisting spaceborne radars in global
rainfall and snowfall estimation. Water Resour. Res. 53(5), 3835–3853 (2017)
J. Vivekanandan, S.M. Ellis, R. Oye, et al., Cloud microphysics retrieval using S-band dual-
polarization radar measurements. J. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 80(3), 381–388 (1990)
N. Wanders, M. Pan, E.F. Wood, Correction of real-time satellite precipitation with multi-sensor
satellite observations of land surface variables. J. Remote Sens. Environ. 160, 206–221 (2015)
X. Wang, Incorporating ensemble covariance in the gridpoint statistical interpolation variational
minimization: A mathematical framework. Mon. Weather Rev. 138(7), 2990–2995 (2010)
J. Wang, Y. Hong, L. Li, et al., The coupled routing and excess storage (CREST) distributed
hydrological model. Hydrol. Sci. J. 56(1), 84–98 (2011)
X. Wang, D. Parrish, D. Kleist, et al., GSI 3DVar-based ensemble–variational hybrid data
assimilation for NCEP global forecast system: Single-resolution experiment. Mon. Weather
Rev. 141(11), 4098–4117 (2013)
F. Weng, L. Zhao, R. Ferraro, et al., Advanced microwave sounding unit cloud and precipitation
algorithms. Radio Sci. 38(4), 8068 (2003)
T. Wilheit, A. Chang, L. Chiu, Retrieval of monthly rainfall indices from microwave radiometric
measurements using probability distribution functions. J. Atmos. Ocean Technol. 8(1), 118–136
(1991)
H. Wu, R.F. Adler, Y. Tian, G.J. Huffman, et al., Real-time global flood estimation using satellite-
based precipitation and a coupled land surface and routing model. Water Resour. Res. 50(3),
2693–2717 (2014)
L. Xu, X. Gao, S. Sorooshian, P.A. Arkin, A microwave infrared threshold technique to improve the
GOES precipitation index. J. Appl. Meteorol. 38, 569–579 (1999)
B. Yong, L. Ren, Y. Hong, et al., First evaluation of the climatological calibration algorithm in the
real-time TMPA precipitation estimates over two basins at high and low latitudes. J. Water
Resour. Res. 49(5), 2461–2472 (2013)
 Remote Sensing Precipitation: Sensors, Retrievals, Validations, and. . . 23

B. Yong, B. Chen, J.J. Gourley, et al., Intercomparison of the Version-6 and Version-7 TMPA
precipitation products over high and low latitudes basins with independent gauge networks:
Is the newer version better in both real-time and post-real-time analysis for water resources
and hydrologic extremes? J. Hydrol. 508, 77–87 (2014)
Z. Zeng, G. Tang, D. Long, et al., A cascading flash flood guidance system: development and
application in Yunnan Province, China. Natural Hazards, 84(3), 2071–2093
Y. Zhang, Y. Hong, X. Wang, et al., Hydrometeorological analysis and remote sensing of extremes:
Was the July 2012 Beijing flood event detectable and predictable by global satellite observing
and global weather modeling systems? J. Hydrol. 16(1), 381–395 (2015)

View publication stats