In March 2019, Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (IMERG)-Final v6 (hereafter IMERG6) was released, with data concerning precipitation dating back to June 2000. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has suggested that researchers use IMERG6 to replace the frequently used Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)-3B42 v7 (hereafter TRMM7), which is expected to cease operation in December 2019. This study aims to evaluate the performance of IMERG6 and TRMM7 in depicting the variations of summer (June, July, and August) precipitation over Taiwan during the period 2000–2017. Data used for the comparison also includes IMERG-Final v5 (hereafter IMERG5) and Global Satellite Mapping of Precipitation for Global Precipitation Measurement (GSMaP)-Gauge v7 (hereafter GSMaP7) during the summers of 2014–2017. Capabilities to apply the four satellite precipitation products (SPPs) in studying summer connective afternoon rainfall (CAR) events, which are the most frequently observed weather patterns in Taiwan, are also examined. Our analyses show that when using more than 400 local rain-gauge observations as a reference base for comparison, IMERG6 outperforms TRMM7 quantitatively and qualitatively, more accurately depicting the variations of the summer precipitation over Taiwan at multiple timescales (including mean status, daily, interannual, and diurnal). IMERG6 also performs better than TRMM7 in capturing the characteristics of CAR activities in Taiwan. These findings highlight that using IMERG6 to replace TRMM7 adds value in studying the spatial-temporal variations of summer precipitation over Taiwan. Furthermore, the analyses also indicated that IMERG6 outperforms IMERG5 and GSMaP7 in the examination of most of the features of summer precipitation over Taiwan during 2014–2017.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited