Estimation of rainfall from infrared‐microwave satellite data for basin‐scale hydrologic modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The infrared‐microwave rainfall algorithm (IMRA) was developed for retrieving spatial rainfall from infrared (IR) brightness temperatures (TBs) of satellite sensors to provide supplementary information to the rainfall field, and to decrease the traditional dependency on limited rain gauge data that are point measurements. In IMRA, a SLOPE technique (ST) was developed for discriminating rain/no‐rain pixels through IR image cloud‐top temperature gradient, and 243K as the IR threshold temperature for minimum detectable rainfall rate. IMRA also allows for the adjustment of rainfall derived from IR‐TB using microwave (MW) TBs. In this study, IMRA rainfall estimates were assessed on hourly and daily basis for different spatial scales (4, 12, 20, and 100 km) using NCEP stage IV gauge‐adjusted radar rainfall data, and daily rain gauge data. IMRA was assessed in terms of the accuracy of the rainfall estimates and the basin streamflow simulated by the hydrologic model, Sacramento soil moisture accounting (SAC‐SMA), driven by the rainfall data. The results show that the ST option of IMRA gave accurate satellite rainfall estimates for both light and heavy rainfall systems while the Hessian technique only gave accurate estimates for the convective systems. At daily time step, there was no improvement in IR‐satellite rainfall estimates adjusted with MW TBs. The basin‐scale streamflow simulated by SAC‐SMA driven by satellite rainfall data was marginally better than when SAC‐SMA was driven by rain gauge data, and was similar to the case using radar data, reflecting the potential applications of satellite rainfall in basin‐scale hydrologic modelling. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".