Evaluation of GPM-DPR precipitation estimates  with WegenerNet gauge data

Lasser, Martin; O, Sungmin; Foelsche, Ulrich

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5055-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 9

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5055-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-5055-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 9

Research article

|

20 Sep 2019

Research article |

| 20 Sep 2019

Evaluation of GPM-DPR precipitation estimates with WegenerNet gauge data

Martin Lasser, Sungmin O, and Ulrich Foelsche

Download

Final revised paper (published on 20 Sep 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 19 Nov 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'reviewer comment', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Dec 2018
- AC1: 'Reply to the comments from Referee #1', Martin Lasser, 12 Mar 2019
RC2: 'Review on “Evaluation of GPM-DPR precipitation estimates with WegenerNet gauge data” by Lasser et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Dec 2018
- AC2: 'Reply to the comments from Referee #2', Martin Lasser, 12 Mar 2019
RC3: 'Review of AMT-2018-395', Anonymous Referee #3, 03 Jan 2019
- AC3: 'Reply to the comments from Referee #3', Martin Lasser, 12 Mar 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Martin Lasser on behalf of the Authors (10 May 2019)

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (14 May 2019) by Gianfranco Vulpiani

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (30 May 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (31 May 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I think the authors addressed the points raised in my previous review. Thus, I would suggest publication of the paper in AMT, provided that a further minor revision is done.

Page 1 Line 19: deliver best results → deliver better results

Page 3 Line 13: Sect. → Section

Page 6 Lines 10-11: As one can see in Fig. 2, every footprint
contains a large range of rainfall and a lot of variability. All that must be approximated with a single GPM-DPR value. → As one can see in Fig. 2, every footprint
contains a large range of rainfall and a lot of variability, that must be approximated with a single GPM-DPR value.

Page 10 Line 5: Therefore, its value always lower than the CSI. → Therefore, its value is always lower than the CSI.

Page 10 Line 8: What does it mean “The HSS denotes a number to the accuracy of the DPR estimation relative to scoring correct by random chance.”? Please, reword.

Page 10 Line 17: “The series of footprints for all events is shown in Fig. 5.” Fig. 5 is mentioned before Figs. 3 and 4. Can you reorder figures?

Page 10 Line 19: “little less with 72%” → “a little lower with 72%”?

Page 10 Line 21: below the the one-to-one line → below the one-to-one line

Page 11 Line 5: i.e. the absolute of the difference → i.e. the absolute value of the difference

Page 13 Line 5: the former show → the former shows

Page 13 Lines 20-21: There are no clear
characteristics which GPM-DPR product → There is no clear
indication of which GPM-DPR product

Page 14 Caption Figure 5. I would change to: “Figure 5: GPM-CO estimates over the WegenerNet (average of WegenerNet 5-min accumulation in the respective footprint) for the events listed in Table 1 and occurred in the years
2014-2017. Only events with precipitation detected in either Ku-NS, Ka-MS or DPR-MS were taken into account. Each box shows precipitation at a same time (one event per box) but different locations.
Correlation and bias between GPM estimates and the WegenerNet within all detected events. The topmost graph gives the precipitation of
the events.”

Page 15 Lines 13-14: The skill is for all three products
slightly above zero in ETS and HSS →ETS and HSS are slightly above zero for all three products

Page 18 Figure 10: I would add the event number (besides the date) on top of each column of the figure.

Page 20 Line 7: grater → greater

Page 21 Line 2: Table A1 lists the statistical items from the derived from the contingency table for each event. → Table A1 lists the statistical items derived from the contingency table for each event.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (04 Jun 2019)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (08 Jun 2019) by Gianfranco Vulpiani

AR by Martin Lasser on behalf of the Authors (19 Jul 2019) Author's response

ED: Publish as is (25 Jul 2019) by Gianfranco Vulpiani

AR by Martin Lasser on behalf of the Authors (30 Jul 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

This paper evaluates the rain rate estimates from the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission's radar instrument by comparing them to the data of the WegenerNet, a local-scale high-resolution network of meteorological stations. Our results show that the GPM-DPR estimates basically match with the WegenerNet measurements, but absolute quantities are biased.