Reply to DOI:10.1029/EO066i002p00010-01
Reply [to “Comment on ”Precipitation research’”]
Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
©1985. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union
Volume 66, Issue 2, page 10, 8 January 1985
How to Cite
1985), Reply [to “Comment on ”Precipitation research’”], Eos Trans. AGU, 66(2), 10–10, doi:10.1029/EO066i002p00010-02.(
- Issue published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Article first published online: 3 JUN 2011
- Cited By
We regret any impression that the Committee on Precipitation believes that precipitation is easy to measure or that gage catch errors are insignificant. As J.C. Rodda correctly points out, gage catch errors can be quite large, depending on precipitation type, winds, gage siting, and orifice height. Furthermore, it is not an uncommon practice to ignore the deficiencies of gage measurements or at least to give them too little consideration. In spite of these facts, it is true that the error characteristics of remotely sensed estimates of precipitation are not well known and that the identification of appropriate error models for remotely sensed estimates is an area of research which deserves encouragement.