Abstract. This paper proposes a protocol to assess the space–time consistency of 12
satellite-based precipitation products (SPPs) according to various
indicators, including (i) direct comparison of SPPs with 72 precipitation
gauges; (ii) sensitivity of streamflow modelling to SPPs at the outlet of
four basins; and (iii) the sensitivity of distributed snow models to SPPs
using a MODIS snow product as reference in an unmonitored mountainous area.
The protocol was applied successively to four different time windows
(2000–2004, 2004–2008, 2008–2012 and 2000–2012) to account for the
space–time variability of the SPPs and to a large dataset composed of
12 SPPs (CMORPH–RAW v.1, CMORPH–CRT v.1, CMORPH–BLD v.1, CHIRP v.2, CHIRPS
v.2, GSMaP v.6, MSWEP v.2.1, PERSIANN, PERSIANN–CDR, TMPA–RT v.7, TMPA–Adj
v.7 and SM2Rain–CCI v.2), an unprecedented comparison. The aim of using
different space scales and timescales and indicators was to evaluate whether
the efficiency of SPPs varies with the method of assessment, time window and
location. Results revealed very high discrepancies between SPPs. Compared to
precipitation gauge observations, some SPPs (CMORPH–RAW v.1, CMORPH–CRT
v.1, GSMaP v.6, PERSIANN, and TMPA–RT v.7) are unable to estimate regional
precipitation, whereas the others (CHIRP v.2, CHIRPS v.2, CMORPH–BLD v.1,
MSWEP v.2.1, PERSIANN–CDR, and TMPA–Adj v.7) produce a realistic
representation despite recurrent spatial limitation over regions with
contrasted emissivity, temperature and orography. In 9 out of 10 of the cases
studied, streamflow was more realistically simulated when SPPs were used as
forcing precipitation data rather than precipitation derived from the
available precipitation gauge networks, whereas the SPP's ability to
reproduce the duration of MODIS-based snow cover resulted in poorer
simulations than simulation using available precipitation gauges.
Interestingly, the potential of the SPPs varied significantly when they were
used to reproduce gauge precipitation estimates, streamflow observations or
snow cover duration and depending on the time window considered. SPPs thus
produce space–time errors that cannot be assessed when a single indicator
and/or time window is used, underlining the importance of carefully
considering their space–time consistency before using them for
hydro-climatic studies. Among all the SPPs assessed, MSWEP v.2.1 showed the
highest space–time accuracy and consistency in reproducing gauge
precipitation estimates, streamflow and snow cover duration.