Jessica R P Sutton | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2024

Evaluating Precipitation Events Using GPM IMERG 30-Minute Near Real-Time Precipitation Estimates

Accurately detecting and estimating precipitation at near–real time (NRT) is of utmost importance for the early detection and monitoring of hydrometeorological hazards. The precipitation product, Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (IMERG), provides NRT 0.1° and 30-min precipitation estimates across the globe with only a 4-h latency. This study was an evaluation of the GPM IMERG version 6 level-3 early run 30-min precipitation product for precipitation events from 2014 through 2020. The purpose of this research was to identify when, where, and why GPM IMERG misidentified and failed to detect precipitation events in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah in the United States. Precipitation events were identified based on 15-min precipitation from gauges and 30-min precipitation from the IMERG multisatellite constellation. False-positive and false-negative precipitation events were identified and analyzed to determine their characteristics. Precipitation events identified by gauges had longer duration and had higher cumulative precipitation than those identified by GPM IMERG. GPM IMERG had many false event detections during the summer months, suggesting possible virga event detection, which is when precipitation falls from a cloud but evaporates before it reaches the ground. The frequency and timing of the merged passive microwave (PMW) product and forward propagation were responsible for IMERG overestimating cumulative precipitation during some precipitation events and underestimating others. This work can inform experts that are using the GPM IMERG NRT product to be mindful of situations where GPM IMERG–estimated precipitation events may not fully resolve the hydrometeorological conditions driving these hazards.

Jessica R P Sutton↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Do Better Satellite Precipitation Algorithms Improve Landslide Hazard Assessment?

Satellites make it possible to estimate precipitation in near real time. Given the challenges of achieving global coverage by other means, these data are used widely. However, few systems for landslide hazard assessment rely on satellite precipitation estimates. This could be due in part to perceptions of accuracy, although latency, spatial resolution, and other factors may also be important. We test whether recent changes to data streams from the Global Precipitation Measurement mission (GPM) have improved its potential for use in landslide prediction. Specifically, we examine data produced by the Integrated Multi-satellitERetrievals for the GPM (IMERG) algorithm, which was upgraded to version 7 this year. IMERG relies upon other algorithms, including the Goddard Profiling Algorithm (GPROF) and the GPM Combined Radar-Radiometer Algorithm (CORRA). Many changes have been made during the switch from IMERG version 6 to version 7. These include upgrading CORRA and GPROF to version 7, to improve the accuracy of precipitation in frozen, mountainous, and coastal areas. The measured intensity of some storms has been enhanced with a new algorithm, the Scheme for Histogram Adjustment with Ranked Precipitation Estimates in the Neighborhood. Combined with many others, these changes to IMERG should improve its utility for landslide hazard assessment in a variety of contexts. To test this idea, we retrain the global Landslide Hazard Assessment for Situational Awareness (LHASA) model twice—first with data from IMERG version 6B and second with 7B. Since current daily rainfall is the most important variable in determining outcomes predicted by LHASA, it should reflect changes made to that input. First, we grid the landslides at a daily, thirty-arcsecond resolution. This serves as the response variable. At each of these sites current and antecedent rainfall are extracted, along with antecedent snow mass and soil moisture, slope, and PGA. In addition, one million grid cells are selected at random points to represent conditions under which landslides (probably) do not occur. After merging these data, we hold back 20% of the dataset for validation purposes and train a machine-learning model with the rest. We assess both the model’s overall ability to identify landslides and its ability to predict specific large landslide disasters.

Thomas A Stanley↗