Diurnal Variability of Global Precipitation: Insights from Hourly Satellite and Reanalysis Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Accurate estimation of precipitation at the global scale is of utmost importance. Even though satellite and reanalysis products are capable of providing high spatial-temporal resolution estimations at the global level, they are associated with significant uncertainties that vary with regional characteristics and scales. The uncertainties among precipitation estimates, in general, are much higher at the sub-daily scale compared to daily, monthly and annual scales. Therefore, evaluating these sub-daily estimations is of specific importance. In this context, this study explores the diurnal cycle of precipitation using all the currently available space-borne and reanalysis-based precipitation products with at least hourly resolution at the quasi-global scale (60° N – 60° S), i.e., Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG), Global Satellite Mapping of Precipitation (GSMaP), Climate Prediction Center Morphing (CMORPH), Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information Using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN), ECMWF Reanalysis v5 (ERA5). The diurnal variability of precipitation is estimated using three parameters, namely, precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity, all remapped at a common resolution of 0.25° and 1 h. All the estimates well represent the spatio-temporal variation across the globe. Nevertheless, considerable uncertainties exist in the estimates regarding the peak precipitation hour, as well as the diurnal mean precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity. In terms of diurnal mean precipitation, PERSIANN shows the lowest estimates compared to the other datasets, with the largest difference observed over the ocean rather than over land. As for diurnal frequency, ERA5 exhibits the highest disparity among the estimates, with a frequency twice as high as that of the other estimates. Furthermore, ERA5 shows an early diurnal peak and highest variability compared to the other datasets. Among the satellite estimates, IMERG, GSMaP, and CMORPH exhibit a similar pattern with a late afternoon peak over land and an early morning peak over the ocean. Overall, it emphasizes the need to integrate diverse datasets and exercise caution when relying solely on individual precipitation products to ensure a thorough understanding and precise analysis of global precipitation patterns.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".