Search

The knowledge of the diurnal cycle of precipitation is of extreme relevance to understanding the physical/dynamic processes associated with the spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation. The main difficulty of this task is the lack of surface precipitation information over certain regions on an hourly time scale and the low spatial representativeness of these data (normally surface gauges). In order to overcome these difficulties, the main objective of this study is to create a 3-h precipitation accumulation database from the gauge-adjusted daily regional precipitation products to resolve the diurnal cycle properly. This study also proposes to evaluate different methodologies for partitioning gauge-adjusted daily precipitation products, i.e., a product made by the combination of satellite estimates and surface gauge observations, into 3-h precipitation accumulation. Two methodologies based on the calculation of a conversion factor F between a daily gauge-adjusted product, combined scheme (CoSch, hereafter), and a non-gauge-adjusted one, the integrated multi-satellite retrievals for GPM (IMERG)-Early (IMERG, hereafter) were tested for this research. Hourly rain gauge stations for the period of 2015–2018 over Brazil were used to assess the performance of the proposed methodologies over the whole region and five sub-regions with homogeneous precipitation regimes. Standard statistical metrics and categorical indices related with the capability to detect rainfall events were used to compare the ability of each product to represent the diurnal cycle. The results show that the new 3-h CoSch products show better agreement with rainfall gauge stations when compared with IMERG, better capturing the diurnal cycle of precipitation. The biggest improvement was over northeastern region close to the coast, where IMERG was not able to capture the diurnal cycle properly. One of the proposed methodologies (CoSchB) performed better on the critical success index and equitable threat score metrics, suggesting that this is the best product over the two. The downside, when compared with the other methodology (CoSchA), was a slight increase in the values of bias and mean absolute error, but still at acceptable levels.