IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 57, NO.
5, MAY 2019
Estimating Summertime Precipitation from
Himawari-8 and Global Forecast System
Based on Machine Learning
Min Min , Chen Bai, Jianping Guo , Fenglin Sun, Chao Liu , Fu Wang, Hui Xu,
Shihao Tang, Bo Li, Di Di, Lixin Dong, and Jun Li
Abstract— Random forests (RFs), an advanced machine learn-
ing (ML) method, was used here to develop a robust and rapid
quantitative precipitation estimates (QPEs) algorithm for the
new-generation geostationary satellite of Himawari-8. In this
algorithm, the global precipitation measurement (GPM) product
has been employed to train QPE prediction model. The real-time
multiband infrared brightness temperature from Himawari-8,
combined with the spatiotemporally matched numerical weather
prediction (NWP) data from the global forecast system, have
been used as predictor variables for QPE. Among the variables
used in RF learning model, total precipitable water and K -index
from NWP data have the highest rankings, indicating the
importance of atmospheric environment for QPE. To enhance
the accuracy of RF models or to optimize model training,
a sample-balance technique has been utilized to adjust the
ratios of samples in nonprecipitation/precipitation classification
and quantitative precipitation regression data sets. Further
sensitivity and validation analyses help determine the optimal
RF classification and regression models for predicting non-
precipitation/precipitation pixel and rain rate. The selected RF
classification model is found to predict precipitation area with an
accuracy of 0.87. For predicted QPE product, the mean-absolute-
error and root-mean-square error of RF regression model are
0.51 and 2.0 mm/h, respectively. Overall, the RF ML algorithm
has a higher detection rate over homogenous ocean surface as
Manuscript received July 16, 2018; revised September 8, 2018; accepted
October 5, 2018. Date of publication November 1, 2018; date of current
version April 22, 2019. This work was supported partly by the National Key
R&D Program of China under Grants 2018YFB0504800 (2018YFB0504802),
2016YFA0600101, and 2017YFC1501401, in part by the Preresearch Project
under Grant D040103, in part by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grant 41775045, Grant 41571348, Grant 41771399, Grant
41605030, and Grant 41601400, and in part by the Chinese Academy of
Meteorological Sciences under Grant 2017Z005. (Corresponding authors:
Jianping Guo; Fenglin Sun.)
M. Min, F. Sun, F. Wang, S. Tang, B. Li, D. Di, and L. Dong are with the
Key Laboratory of Radiometric Calibration and Validation for Environmental
Satellites, National Satellite Meteorological Center, China Meteorological
Administration, Beijing 100081, China (e-mail: sunfl@cma.gov.cn).
C. Bai is with the School of Optoelectronics, Beijing Institute of Technology,
Beijing 100081, China.
J. Guo and H. Xu are with the State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather,
Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing 100081, China (e-mail:
jpguocams@gmail.com).
C. Liu is with the Key Laboratory for Aerosol-Cloud-Precipitation of China
Meteorological Administration, School of Atmospheric Physics, Nanjing
University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China.
J. Li is with the Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Study,
University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706 USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TGRS.2018.2874950
0196-2892 © 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2557
compared with over land. Meanwhile, this RF algorithm tends
to underestimate rain rate, especially in the presence of heavy
rainfall. Despite this, it still produces a reasonable pattern of
rainfall area and intensity, which are highly consistent with GPM
observations.
Index Terms— Himawari-8, machine learning (Ml), quantita-
tive precipitation estimates (QPEs), random forests (RFs).
I. I NTRODUCTION
S UMMERTIME precipitation systems in East Asia play
an important role in the energy equilibrium, climatic
system, and freshwater sustainability [1]. Long-term gage-
and satellite-based precipitation observations have been widely
used to characterize the interannual, interdecadal, or diur-
nal variabilities of precipitation, which are either connected
to large-scale circulation, or to aerosol pollution [1]–[7].
In particular, high-quality quantitative precipitation estima-
tion (QPE) products are imperiously needed for nowcast of
high-impact weather or ecologically and hydrometeorologi-
cally oriented projects [8]. Traditionally, the ground-based rain
gages and weather radars can well measure the precipitation
at high temporal resolution [4]. Nevertheless, these ground-
based instruments are extremely lacking in many parts of the
world, including oceans, mountainous regions, inland lakes,
and sparsely populated remote areas [9]. As a key complemen-
tary data, QPE products from space emerge in recent decades,
since considerable weather satellites have been successfully
launched and in operation, such as geostationary (GEO)
meteorological satellite (e.g., Himawari, Fengyun-2, GEOS),
and the low-earth-orbiting passive microwave satellites [i.e.,
the tropical rainfall measuring mission (TRMM) and the global
precipitation measurement (GPM] mission) [8], [10]–[12],
which to great extent fills the observational gap that ground-
based measurements have left.
It has been well documented that the QPE products
from GEO meteorological satellite possess the advantage of
relatively high temporal and spatial resolution, albeit the
limited retrieval accuracy due to the indirect connection
between surface rain rates and cloud top brightness temper-
atures (TBB) [10], [13]–[17]. Theoretically, compared with
infrared (IR) radiation measurements, microwave radiation
 2558
can better penetrate clouds and interact more directly with
precipitation, thereby getting a superior QPE and even
3-D structure of rainfall [12], [18]. More importantly,
the microwave observations have been well assimilated into
numerical weather prediction (NWP) model, much improv-
ing the prediction products [19]. However, the microwave
satellite has relatively low temporal resolution. Currently,
the instantaneous and operational QPE product from NOAA
GEO satellite IR measurements has been implemented using
a self-calibrating multivariate precipitation retrieval algorithm
developed by Kuligowski [13], [20] which is mainly based on
the linear correlations between the estimates and ground-based
rain gage observations.
In recent years, a wide spectrum of emerging machine
learning (ML) techniques, such as support vector
machines (SVMs) [21], decision trees (DTs) [22], random
forests (RF) [23], artificial neural network [24] and, deep
learning (DL) [25], have been successfully and extensively
applied in QPE [9], [26]–[28]. The computing efficiencies
of ML techniques have been much improved, offering us
unprecedented opportunities to process large-volume data sets
in near real-time systems, such as Earth-observing satellite
data. Notably, the rapid developments in ML frameworks,
such as scikit-learn [29], Theano [30], TensorFlow [31],
and PyTorch (https://pytorch.org), make it easy to use
advanced ML algorithms for model training and high-
efficiency prediction. RFs [23], as the high-accurate and
promising ML algorithms, have received increasing attention
for remote sensing applications. As a bagging ensemble
classification and regression technique, the RF algorithm
can easily run in a parallel computing mode and capture
nonlinear or complex relationships between predictor and
predictand [23]. Kühnlein et al. [9] implemented the QPE
using the Meteosat Second Generation/Spinning Enhanced
Visible and Infrared Imager data [32] using the RF algorithm,
which was considered by three different typical scenarios of
daytime, twilight, and nighttime, respectively [9], [26].
Since the beginning of 2014, a series of new-generation
GEO meteorological satellites have been successfully
launched, such as FengYun-4 (FY-4) of China Meteorological
Administration, Himawari-8/9 of Japan Meteorological
Agency (JMA), Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites-R (GOES-R) of U.S. NOAA, and so on [33]–[36].
Himawari-8, as the JMA next-generation operational
geostationary satellite, was successfully launched on
October 7, 2014, and the observation data began to be
released on July 7, 2015. A 16-band Advanced Himawari
Imager (AHI) is onboard Himawari-8 with diverse spatial
resolutions ranging from 0.5 (visible band) to 2.0 km
(IR band) and a full-disk observation frequency of 10
min (http://www.jma-net.go.jp/msc/en/). The QPE from
Himawari-8 is quite limited, let alone those using ML.
Therefore, the primary objective of this paper is to develop
a rapid and unified (the differences between day, night, and
twilight belts are not considered) retrieval algorithm for QPE
from real-time Himawari-8/AHI (H08/AHI) observations,
using RF. The implementation of this rapid and unified
QPE algorithm is expected to improve the accuracy of QPE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 57, NO. 5, MAY 2019
in East Asia, and to promote wider application of GEO
meteorological satellite data in nowcasting applications.
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. Section II
briefly introduces the satellite and ancillary data used for
training RF model and QPE. Section III presents the algorithm
in detail, including RFs introduction and RF classification
and regression models. In Section IV, major results of QPE
based on the ML algorithm are presented, which are further
validated against Integrated MultisatellitE Retrievals (IMERG)
for GPM. Finally, Section V provides a short summary.
II. DATA
To train the model in RF algorithm, we employed three
months (June, July, and August of 2016) of continuous quanti-
tative precipitation data from the level 3 gridded GPM IMERG
(version of V04A) data [8], [18], [37]. The IMERG data
have a time interval of half an hour with the maximum rain
rate of 50.0 mm/h, which covers the whole area between
the latitudes of 60°S and 60°N within a spatial resolution
of 0.1° × 0.1° [8]. Technically, this is a uniform and merged
precipitation product by intercalibrating, merging, and interpo-
lating some satellite microwave precipitation estimates (e.g.,
NOAA Joint Polar Satellite System-Advanced Technology
Microwave Sounder, JPSS-ATMS), together with microwave-
calibrated IR satellite estimates (e.g., NOAA GOES-E/W), rain
gage analyses, and potentially other precipitation estimators
at fine time and space scales for the TRMM and GPM eras
over the globe. Previous validation studies by comparing
this product with ground-based rain gages or radars over
different regions all point to the good reliability of IMERG
products [18], [38], [39]. Note that the freely released real-
time IMERG V04A version data will be delayed by about
3–4 months. Consequently, this time lag leads to its inca-
pability in supporting near real-time storm monitoring and
nowcasting.
In spite of the delayed dissemination time of the GPM
IMERG data, the H8/AHI measurements are real time
and publicly accessible, which will be used to implement
QPE with high spatial and temporal resolutions. Consid-
ering the common temporal coverage of these two satel-
lite data sets, we choose the overlapped period from
June to August 2016 to study summertime rainfall in
this investigation. Table I shows the specifications, spa-
tial resolutions, and radiometric calibration accuracy of H8/
AHI (http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/en/himawari89/space
_segment/doc/AHI8_performance_test_en.pdf), in addition to
its primary applications of different bands [35], [40], [41].
Bands 1–6, concentrated in the visible and near-IR wave-
lengths, are designed to measure earth-view surface-reflected
solar radiation during daylight hours, which are typically
used for retrieving cloud, aerosol, and vegetation proper-
ties or making true color picture [42]. The thermal emissive
bands (i.e., bands 7–16) observe thermal emission radiations
from Earth targets during both daytime and nighttime. Note
that the observed radiances at 3.8-μm band are inevitably
impacted by sunlight at daytime and twilight (3.8-μm band
contains both reflected and emissive radiations at daytime and
 MIN et al.: ESTIMATING SUMMERTIME PRECIPITATION FROM HIMAWARI-8 AND GFS BASED ON ML
TABLE I
H IMAWARI -8/AHI S PECIFICATIONS . SST: S EA S URFACE T EMPERATURE
twilight). In order to make a consensus algorithm and reduce
the impacts of heterogeneous reflected sunlight, we only
employ the TBBs observed by nine IR bands (Bands 8–16)
of H08/AHI from 6.24 to 13.28 μm to predict or esti-
mate quantitative precipitation based on ML technique. The
radiometric calibration accuracies of aforementioned nine IR
bands of H08/AHI reach around 0.25% (Table I), which can
ensure the stability and consistency between training and
predicting models. In addition, cloud phase (ice, water, mixed,
and supercooled) and cloud top properties (height, pressure,
and temperature) products retrieved from H08/AHI data are
also used here, which are generated from the near real-time
and robust FengYun Geostationary Algorithm Testbed system
[35], [36], [41]–[44]. In this paper, all the TBBs observed
by IR bands and cloud products of H08/AHI are within a
horizontal resolution of 2.0 km and a full-disk observation
time interval of 10 min.
In addition to H08/AHI observation data, we also employ
other dynamic and environmental or static ancillary data
to further enhance the performance of QPE algorithm of
H08/AHI. As an important atmospheric dynamic and envi-
ronmental data, the NWP data from National Centers for
Environmental Prediction Global Forecast System (GFS) with
a spatial resolution of 0.5° × 0.5°, 26 layers from 1000 to
10 hPa in vertical and a time interval of 3 h [45] can be
regularly and daily obtained or downloaded at four different
initial forecast times (0000, 0600, 1200, and 1800 UTC) from
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA,
ftp://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/GFS/Grid4). Normally, the real-
time GFS NWP data are always used in weather forecast
business, which are seldom applied in nowcasting. In this
investigation, we introduce the GFS NWP data at an initial
forecast time of 0600 UTC one day ago to predict or train
this QPE algorithm. Our goal is to use the atmospheric
dynamic and environmental information in NWP as back-
ground data to enhance the accuracy of predicted QPE.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2559
In addition, the high-resolution global surface elevation data
(https://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/) are used here to collocate
every H08/AHI pixel as one of the important predictor vari-
ables.
III. M ETHODOLOGY
A. Random Forests
RFs technique was originally proposed by Breiman [23],
which has been widely used for both classification and
regression analyses without much hyperparameter tuning. This
method trains a number of DT predictors that are then aver-
aged to improve the predicted accuracy and reduce overfitting.
Furthermore, it can well capture nonlinear association patterns
between predictor and predictand variables. The RFs are also
able to get unbiased estimates (deviations) of the regression
or classification models by the out-of-bag (OOB) score esti-
mation. This DT-based ensemble ML method not only can
achieve a high accuracy prediction but also give the impor-
tance score (IS) of the predictor variables used for training
the forests. Despite the aforementioned advantages, the RF
algorithm is still lack of interpretability and mathematical
theory by nature, making it almost impossible or uneasily
to demonstrate how the predictions or decisions are made.
In addition, it is not possible for the predictand values to go
beyond the ranges of training data values [9], [23], [46].
Generally, the RF algorithm randomly selects n (number
of tree) bootstrap samples from different data sets to develop
the DT model. For each of the bootstrap samples, a subset of
the predictor variables is selected randomly with the lowest
residual sum of squares to help the forest grow. Each forest
(with n trees) has to be made sure to grow to the largest
extent. The final predictions are derived by averaging out
all regression trees, which are calculated by putting the test
data set down each of the forests. During the forest growth,
about one-third of the samples are left out to estimate the
 2560
Fig. 1. Two-step RF ML strategy and flowchart for QPEs.
OOB score and the importance of the variables used for
constructing the aforementioned tree. For more theoretical
details and working principles of RF algorithm, the reader
is referred to the previous research studies [23], [46].
In this investigation, the free, simple, and efficient scikit-
learn toolkit [29], a well-known Python module for ML, has
been used to implement the training, parameter adjustment,
and prediction within this RF algorithm. A range of typical
classification, regression, and clustering algorithms are inte-
grated into this Python ML toolkit, including RFs, SVMs, and
k-means, among others. (http://scikit-learn.org/stable/).
B. Processing Flow
In this paper, we use a two-step RF ML strategy to train
the input data and to ultimately make QPE. Fig. 1 shows the
flowchart for QPE using a two-step RF ML method. It roughly
contains two key steps. First, we have to match the H08/AHI
and NWP data with GPM IMERG rain rate data in the same
spatiotemporal scales, which are then used to train and develop
a nonprecipitation and precipitation classification model based
on the RF algorithm described in Section III-A. Then, this
RF classification model is employed to identify whether any
given pixel for the H08/AHI satellite image can generate
rainfall or not. The second step is to develop a regression
model for QPE after the precipitating/nonprecipitating pixels
have been determined. For a real-time application, only those
data with matched H08/AHI and NWP data will be used
to estimate quantitative precipitation based on the two RF
ML models (namely, RF classification and regression mod-
els). Note that we also use a sample-balance technique in
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 57, NO. 5, MAY 2019
the training for both RF classification and regression mod-
els in order to improve the performance of RF prediction
models. The details concerning how to train RF models
based on the sample-balance technique will be discussed
in Sections II-C and II-D.
C. Nonprecipitation and Precipitation Classification Training
Following the flowchart shown in Fig. 1, we developed
an RF classification model to identify nonprecipitation and
precipitation pixels observed by H08/AHI, by selecting pre-
dictor variables that are pertaining to QPE. Caution should
be taken when using the conceptual framework or model
of the rainfall retrieval for the selection of RF predictor
variables, particular in extratropical cyclones [9], [14], [15].
In addition to the well-known inherited dominant or sensitive
variables for rainfall retrieval [9], more predictor variables
listed in Table II are considered and used in this investigation
for nowcasting applications from spatiotemporally matched
GFS NWP data. In addition to TBBs, TBB differences, and
cloud properties product from H08/AHI [9], we introduce
some traditional important weather metrics as calculated using
time-space matched NWP data to further and better support
QPE. These weather indexes can well describe the thermal
(i.e., K-index, θse850/925), dynamic (i.e., CAPE, CIN, LI-
index, EBS), and moisture (i.e., TPW) features of atmospheric
environmental fields [45], [46], which are closely associated
with the initiation and development of clouds that produce
rain [48], [49].
For RF model training, we tune iteratively the para-
meters in order to find an optimal model, including the
 MIN et al.: ESTIMATING SUMMERTIME PRECIPITATION FROM HIMAWARI-8 AND GFS BASED ON ML
TABLE II
P REDICTOR VARIABLES OR F EATURES U SED IN THE RF M ODELS FOR
N ONPRECIPITATION /P RECIPITATION C LASSIFICATION AND QPE
total number of trees in the forest (n_estimators), the max-
imum depth of the tree (max_depth), and the number
of predictor variables (or features, or denoted by f )
when looking for the best split (max_features)(http://scikit-
learn.org/stable/modules/ensemble.html#forest). Previous stu-
dies [9], [23] have pointed out that the suggested default √
values of n_estimators for RF classification (= f)
and regression (= f /3) models typically vary, depending
on the specific conditions when the RF classification is
performed. Therefore, the max_features for RF models are
supposed to be tested until it reaches the best values. For-
tunately, the new official RF package documentation suggests
that the empirical good default value of max_features or f
for RF regression model equals to the total number
of predictor variables or features (http://scikit-learn.org/
stable/modules/ensemble.html#forests-of-randomized-trees).
Overall, the number of three months (June, July, and August
of 2016) of samples, which are matched pixel by pixel from
H08/AHI and GPM IMERG data, is more than 30 billion. The
samples are too huge to train RF classification model. In light
of this issue, we randomly pick up 1/1000 matched samples
to train the RF classifier, thereby determining whether the
samples or pixels are nonprecipitating or precipitating. Also,
it should be noted that we exclude the data on 15 June, July,
and August, which will be used for validation in Section IV.
In terms of the DT, its number in the forest has great
implication for the OOB score [9], [26]. This score represents
an unbiased estimation of the RF model or fitting residual
error with training data set. Namely, a significant OOB error
(= 1.0 OOB score) in the RF model has been induced by a
relatively small total number of trees (e.g., n_estimators < 10)
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2561
TABLE III
T HREE T YPICAL S AMPLE D ATA S ETS FOR RF T RAINING U NDER
D IFFERENT S CENARIOS , W HICH A RE I NDICATED BY THE R ATIO
OF THE N UMBER OF N ONPRECIPITATION P IXEL TO
THE N UMBER OF P RECIPITATION P IXEL
in the forest [9]. Also, the balance in the sample number of
nonprecipitation and precipitation significantly tends to exert
influences on the final predictive accuracy [9].
The original ratio of nonprecipitation samples to pre-
cipitation samples is 4.5:1, which is also referred to as
“Scenario-C-0.” In order to enhance the prediction accuracy,
we separately adjust the original nonprecipitation/precipitation
sample ratios to 3:1 and 2:1, which are marked as “Scenario-
C-1” and “Scenario-C-2,” respectively. Table III details the
number of samples used for RF classification training under
different scenarios as mentioned earlier. During the processes
of classification training, the sample-balance technique [9] has
been used to conduct diverse sensitivity studies. This technique
randomly downsamples the majority class (nonprecipitation
pixels) in order to equally divide the number of minority
and majority class samples. Due to only a subset of majority
class samples being used in training, it may result in a
poor performance for the majority class [50]. Therefore, this
technique is employed here to enhance the probability of
precipitation area detection (minority class).
For the sample data set training under Scenario-C-1,
Fig. 2 shows the effect of number of trees in the forest
(n_estimators), maximum depth of the tree (max_depth),
and random split predictor variables (max_features) on OOB
scores for selecting an appropriate nonprecipitation and pre-
cipitation RF classification model (n_estimators = 100, 300,
500, 1000; max_depth √ = 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50; max_features
= 4, 5, 6, and 7, f ≈ 5, f = 27 as detailed in Table
II). Particularly, “NaN” in subboxes represents the failed case
(or none) for crashed RF model, which is mainly due to the
large storage capacity of the final RF model. Theoretically, the
storage capacity of the RF model will significantly increase
with n_estimators and max_depth [23]. Also, it is shown
that the highest OOB score of 0.8193 has been achieved
for the RF algorithm under a scenario with n_estimators =
500, max_depth = 50, and max_features = 7. However, this
scenario ensues an extremely large storage capacity (72.0 GB),
leading to a longer time (about 7 min) spent to read or input
the RF model, which, in turn, seriously reduces the real-
time efficiency of QPE. Given much smaller storage capacity
(8.6 GB), and less time (0.3 min) spent for reading the data,
the RF model with n_estimators = 300, max_depth = 20,
 2562 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 57, NO. 5, MAY 2019

TABLE IV
IS S OF P REDICTOR VARIABLES IN THE RF M ODEL AND T HEIR
C ORRESPONDING R ANKINGS , BASED ON THE S AMPLES OF
S CENARIO -C-1 (3:1, N _E STIMATORS = 300, M AX _D EPTH = 20,
AND M AX _F EATURES = 7) FOR N ONPRECIPITATION /
P RECIPITATION C LASSIFICATION

Fig. 2. Effect of total number of trees in the forest (n_estimators),

maximum depth of the tree (max_depth), and random split predictor vari-
ables [max_features = (top left) 4, (top right) 5, (bottom left)6, and (bot-
tom right)7] on OOB scores for the nonprecipitation and precipitation RF
classification models using the Scenario-C-1 (3:1) samples. The number and
“NaN” in every subbox represent the accurate OOB score and failed scenario,
respectively.

and max_features = 7 has been selected as our optimal RF

classification model for real-time QPE, even though its OOB
score is 0.8136, a little bit lower than 0.8193.
Table IV shows the ISs of all the predictor variables and
their rankings for this optimal nonprecipitation/precipitation
RF classification model. As one of the key parameters in RF
algorithm, the IS here represents the weighting coefficient of
every predictor in the fitting prediction model. Among others,
the TBBs and TBB differences observed by H08/AHI get the
top rankings, such as T11.2−12.3, T7.3−12.3 , T10.4 , indicating
the importance of cloud top properties from space. It is
known that these near- or middle-IR wavelengths are generally
characterized with relatively high atmospheric transmission
and weak atmospheric absorption [34], [50]. In addition,
K -index and TPW from real-time NWP data show relatively
high rankings. In addition to TPW, it is very interesting to
see that T8.6 , representing low atmospheric layer water vapor
(WV) information, also get a high IS [51]. Overall, the results
illustrate that not only real-time H08/AHI observation data but
also NWP data (representing environmental field information)
are significant for discriminating nonprecipitation and precip-
itation pixels.
D. Regression Training for Quantitative Precipitation
Estimates
Given that the maximum number of random split variables
must be smaller than the total number of predictor variables
(i.e., 27), the training of QPEs RF regression model only sets
the number of random split variables (max_features) to be 27,
in sharp contrast with the nonprecipitation/precipitation RF
classification model. As such, we are unable to perform the
same sensitivity test for the parameter of max_features as the
RF classification model.
Fig. 3 shows that the RF regression model is unable to get
a relatively high OOB score when we use the original rain
rate samples. Note that about 6 million rainfall samples (about
one-fifth of all the samples) are selected from the original
data set for the RF classification model training. Nevertheless,
the relatively lower OOB scores (about 0.23) indicate that the
RF regression model will get more biased estimates than the
classification model, which tends to likely induce a significant
underestimation of rain rate for the strong dependence of
OOB score on the deviations between prediction and observed
rain rate. Similar to previous studies [9], [26], [50] and
nonprecipitation/precipitation RF classification model, the RF
regression model also cannot predict the relatively heavy rain

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 MIN et al.: ESTIMATING SUMMERTIME PRECIPITATION FROM HIMAWARI-8 AND GFS BASED ON ML 2563

TABLE V
IS S OF P REDICTOR VARIABLES OF THE RF M ODEL AND T HEIR
C ORRESPONDING R ANKINGS , BASED ON THE S AMPLES OF
S CENARIO -R-2 ( N _E STIMATORS = 100, M AX _D EPTH = 40,
AND M AX _F EATURES = 27) FOR Q UANTITATIVE
P RECIPITATION R EGRESSION

Fig. 3. Same as Fig. 2, but for quantitative precipitation RF regression models

based on three typical scenarios. (Top left) Scenario-R-0. (Top right) Scenario-
R-1. (Bottom left) Scenario-R-2. The number of random split predictor
variables, max_features = 27.

event very well. This is probably attributed to that the training

sample distributed unevenly (a small proportion of heavy
rainfall samples). Therefore, in order to better enhance the
OOB score and predictive accuracy of a heavy rain event,
the sample-balance technique has to be used to increase the
numbers of high-rain-rate samples. Fig. 4 shows the different
sample number distributions of rainfall rate for three typi-
cal scenarios: Scenario-R-0, Scenario-R-1, and Scenario-R-2,
which correspond to three data sets under original (natural),
decline, and equilibrium sample number distribution scenarios.
The two new samples (Scenario-R-1/2) stem from the original
sample (Scenario-R-0) by simply increasing the high-rain-rate
samples. Most of the rainfall samples are found to be smaller
than 4 mm/h for the Scenario-R-0 data set, indicating a clear
imbalance of sample distribution.
Same as in Fig. 2, Fig. 3 also shows the effect of total
number of trees in the forest and a maximum depth of the tree
on OOB scores for the quantitative precipitation RF regres-
sion models under three different scenarios mentioned before.
Apparently, it shows the significant increases in OOB scores
of RF model with the maximum depth for Scenario-R-1 and
Scenario-R-1-2. Considering the total storage capacities and
OOB scores of all RF models in Fig. 3, we choose the model Fig. 4. Probability distributions of rain rate sample for three typical scenarios,
with n_estimators = 100 and max_depth = 40 (OOB score namely, Scenario-R-0, Scenario-R-1, and Scenario-R-2. N represents the total
= 0.9887) under Scenario-R-2 as the optimal RF regression number of training samples.
model, whose effective storage capacity is about 20.0 GB (only
1–2 min required for loading this model). Table V shows the with Table IV, we find the ranking of predictor variables
ISs of all the predictor variables and their rankings for the QPE from NWP data have been significantly improved, indicating
RF regression model based under Scenario-R-2. Compared the importance of atmospheric environment field parameters

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2564 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 57, NO. 5, MAY 2019

Fig. 5. Comparisons of nonprecipitation/precipitation [(a)–(d) at 2230 UTC on June 15, 2016; (e)–(h) at 0200 UTC on July 15, 2016] between the GPM
IMERG QPE products (first column) and the predictions using three different RF classification models based on the samples of Scenario-C-0 (second column),
Scenario-C-1 (third column), and Scenario-C-2 (fourth column). Purple area: presence of rainfall.

cannot be ignored in near real-time QPE. In the meantime, TABLE VI

the TBBs (T6.2 , T6.9 , T7.3 , and T8.6 ) observed by four WV
absorption channels [52] drop sharply in the ranks, implying
a weak connection between atmospheric moisture content at
high layer and ground-based rain rate. However, T7.3−12.3
still keeps a relatively high ranking in the RF regression model.
This could be due to the precipitating areas dominated by
convections, which are always characterized by a deep cloud
with cloud top reaching much high into the troposphere [9].
The brightness temperature difference between the WV and
IR channels (i.e., T7.3−12.3 ) reflects to some extent the
information of the cloud-top height relative to the tropopause
level [53]. In addition, we find the relatively low rankings of
cloud phase and surface elevation in Tables IV and V, which
implies their weak associations with rainfall event.
IV. VALIDATIONS
A. Validation of all Rainfall Prediction Results
As above-mentioned in Section III, three days (June 15,
2016; July 15, 2016; and August 15, 2016) of indepen-
dent and spatiotemporally matched data are used here for
validating the performances of the RF classification and
regression models. For the nonprecipitation/precipitation RF
classification model, we introduce five classical metrics to
quantitatively assess the nonprecipitation and precipitation
classification results: probability of detection (POD, optimal
= 1), false-alarm ratio (FAR, optimal = 0), critical success
index (CSI, optimal = 1), Heidke skill score (HSS, optimal =
1), and hit rate (HR, optimal = 1), which are formulated as
S TATISTICS ON THE P ERFORMANCE M ETRICS OF P RECIPITATION
C LASSIFICATION U SING T HREE I NDEPENDENT RF C LASSIFICATION
M ODELS BASED ON THE S CENARIOS U SED TO T RAIN
S AMPLES : S CENARIO -C-0/1/2 ( N _E STIMATORS = 300,
M AX _D EPTH = 20, AND M AX _F EATURES = 7)
follows [54], [55]:
POD = a/(a + c) (1)
FAR = b/(a + b) (2)
CSI = a/(a + b + c) (3)
HSS = 2(ad − bc)/[(a + c)(c + d) + (a + b)(b + d)] (4)
HR = (a + d)/(a + b + c + d) (5)
where a is the number of imagery pixels identified by both
GPM IMERG product and RF classification model as precip-
itation; c signifies the number of pixels that GPM IMERG
product indicates as precipitation but RF model does not; b
denotes the number of imagery pixels that RF model identifies
as precipitation but GPM IMERG product does not; and
d represents the number of pixels that both GPM IMERG
product and RF regression model identify as nonprecipitation.
Table VI summarizes the statistics on the performance
metrics of precipitation classification using three independent

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 MIN et al.: ESTIMATING SUMMERTIME PRECIPITATION FROM HIMAWARI-8 AND GFS BASED ON ML 2565

Fig. 6. Comparisons of QPE [(a) and (b) at 0730 UTC on July 15, 2016; (c) and (d) at 1930 UTC on June 15, 2016] between the (left) GPM IMERG
product and the (right) prediction using the RF classification and regression models.

RF classification models (n_estimators = 300, max_depth =

20, and max_features = 7), based on the three scenarios used
to train samples. Compared with Scenario-C-0, the POD for
Scenario-C-2 increases significantly from 0.48 to 0.68 for pre-
cipitation pixel prediction due to the sharp increase in precipi-
tation samples. In addition, the CSI and HSS scores vary only
by a small margin when we use the samples of Scenario-C-2,
regardless of the ratio of nonprecipitation and precipitation
samples. The HRs decrease slightly with rising precipitation
samples. In contrast, the FARs significantly increase from
0.27 to 0.41, most likely due to the increasing detection
probability of precipitation pixel. Although the enhanced
POD can better predict precipitation pixel, the FAR increases
with the increasing ratio of precipitation pixels. Therefore,
due to the nearly invariable CSI and HSS scores between
Scenario-C-1 and Scenario-C-2 in Table VI, we ultimately
choose the RF classification model based on the Scenario-
C-1 data set (3:1, n_estimators = 300, max_depth = 20, and
max_features = 7), which is expected to better predict non-
Fig. 7. Comparisons of QPE between GPM IMERG and prediction model.
precipitation/precipitation pixels (see details in Section III-B). Color bar: occurrence frequency (in log scale) at intervals of 0.5 mm/h.
To visually inspect the classification results, Fig. 5 shows the
two typical nonprecipitation/precipitation classification cases
at 2230 UTC (night time) on June 15 and 0200 UTC (daytime) models of Scenario-C-0, Scenario-C-1, and Scenario-C-2 (with
on July 15, 2016 between the GPM IMERG QPE products the highest POD). It is obvious that the nonprecipitation
and the predictions using the three different RF classification and precipitation prediction results using the RF algorithm

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2566
Fig. 8. Same as Fig. 7, but for the results over (left) land and (right) ocean.
based on Scenario-C-1 yield a better consistence with the
IMERG QPE products. In contrast, the RF algorithm based
on Scenario-C-2 tends to overestimate the precipitation pix-
els from H08/AHI observations. Intriguingly, some missing
independent precipitating cloud systems for Scenario-C-2 are
able to be predicted when we use the optimal Scenario-C-
1 classification model.
Fig. 6(a)–(d) illustrates the comparisons of QPE (0730 UTC
on July 15, 2016 and 1930 UTC on June 15, 2016) between
the GPM IMERG product and the prediction using the RF
classification (Scenario-C-1) and regression (Scenario-R-2)
models. The results show a consistent spatial pattern or good
correlation of QPEs between GPM IMERG product and
prediction. A large proportion of heavy rainfall areas in the
full disk of H08/AHI observation can be well captured by
the two optimal RF models. However, the extremely heavy
rainfall (>20 mm/h) areas are unable to be predicted very
well. The RF regression model can only predict the rough
location of extremely heavy rainfall area but cannot quanti-
tatively and accurately predict the rain rate. To be specific,
the RF regression model tends to significantly underestimate
the heavy rainfall, which is similar to the findings revealed in
previous studies [26]. Note that the total prediction time for a
H08/AHI full disk observation using two optimal RF models is
about 4 min based on a 12-kernel computing in parallel, which
can basically meet the efficiency requirement of now-casting
applications from satellite observations.
Fig. 7 shows the comparison results of QPEs between GPM
IMERG and prediction model, where the color bar repre-
sents the occurrence frequency in log scale with an interval
of 0.5 mm/h. Apparently, most of the samples concentrate
around the boxes of QPE with GPM IMERG < 3.0 mm/h
and predicted QPE < 0.5 mm/h, indicating a significant
underestimated QPE. Except for the extremely heavy rainfall
events (>20 mm/h), the algorithm tends to underestimate the
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 57, NO. 5, MAY 2019
slight and moderate rain rates as well. Based on the same
aforementioned validation data, mean absolute error (MAE)
and root-mean-square error (RMSE) of all predicted QPE are
0.51 and 2.0 mm/h, respectively. Overall, despite the fact that
the algorithm may miss some rainfall areas and underestimate
rain rate (or QPE), a high consistent pattern is still able to
be found between GPM IMERG product and near real-time
prediction (Figs. 5 and 6).
B. Validations of Rainfall Over Land and Ocean
In this section, we will show the validation results of
the predicted QPE values over land and ocean, respectively.
Table VII shows the statistical mean scores of nonprecipita-
tion/precipitation discrimination algorithm (Scenario-C-1) and
the mean MAE and RMSE of retrieved QPE (Scenario-R-2)
over land and ocean, respectively. A POD of 0.59 is found
over the ocean, much higher than over land. By comparison,
a FAR of 0.33 over the ocean is much lower than over land.
The relatively higher mean scores of CSI, HSS, and HR over
the ocean are likely to be attributed to the homogeneous
surface properties over the ocean. This finding indicates a
better prediction for nonprecipitation/precipitation pixels over
the homogeneous ocean surface. On the contrary, the mean
MAE (0.52 mm/h) and RMSE (2.10 mm/h) of retrieved QPE
are relatively higher over ocean than land (0.44 and 1.72)
shown in Table VII. The higher uncertainty in QPE is mainly
contributed to more heavy rainfall events from GPM IMERG
data over the ocean, which can be easily found in Figs. 6 and 7.
These unpredictable heavy rainfall events inevitably increase
the occurrence frequency of large errors in QPE over the
ocean.
As shown in the scatter plot in Fig. 8, the QPEs retrieved
from GPM IMERG are validated against those from the RF
prediction model over land and ocean, respectively. It is not
 MIN et al.: ESTIMATING SUMMERTIME PRECIPITATION FROM HIMAWARI-8 AND GFS BASED ON ML
TABLE VII
S TATISTICS ON THE M EAN S CORES OF N ONPRECIPITATION /P RECIPITATION D ISCRIMINATION A LGORITHM AND
THE M EAN MAE AND RMSE OF QPE A LGORITHM OVER L AND AND O CEAN
a surprise that more rainfall samples concentrate around the
boxes >8.0 mm/h over the ocean and <3.0 mm/h over land.
In general, the predicted QPE values show a better consistent
result over land compared with over ocean, particularly the
cases with light rainfall. The accuracy of extremely heavy
rainfall events (>20 mm/h) prediction is still low over both
land and ocean.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper aims to investigate and develop a unified (a con-
sistent retrieval between day, night, and twilight belts in a full
disk observation) QPE algorithm for nowcasting application in
summer by combining real-time Himawari-8/AHI observation
data, cloud physical properties products, and GFS NWP data.
The RFs ensemble classification and regression technique was
used here to implement near real-time precipitation prediction.
This new algorithm is remarkably different from the traditional
and existing QPE for GEO satellite imager due to it is not
using a conventional parametric approach but an RFs ML
algorithm. Its key advantage is the ability to capture nonlinear
association patterns between predictor and predictand, such as
precipitation.
Compared with the existing ML approach [24] for QPE, the
spatiotemporally matched real-time NWP data are introduced
as additional predictors in the regression model. It was note-
worthy that some high-rank parameters derived from NWP
data directly indicate an important role of atmospheric back-
ground information in the RF classification and regression
models. This new finding illustrates that the atmospheric envi-
ronment field data are also valuable for nowcasting products
such as QPE based on an advanced ML algorithm like RFs. As
mentioned before, the RF algorithm is able to better capture
nonlinear patterns between predictors from NWP data and
precipitation.
In addition, a sample-balance technique was also used
to significantly improve the RF classification and regression
models based on the original sample data sets. Some sensitivity
studies were conducted to test the effects of sample proportion
and three important RF model parameters (number of tree, tree
max depth, and number of random estimator) on the accuracy
of RF prediction model. The results show the mean hit rate
of nonprecipitation/precipitation classification is about 0.87,
and the predicted QPE MAE and RMSE are, respectively,
0.51 and 2.0 mm/h. In spite of the predicted results of
QPE show a significant underestimation (especially, it cannot
retrieve extremely heavy rainfall value), we could still find
the high consistent patterns of precipitation area and intensity
with the GPM IMERG data. However, the highly efficient
and consistent patterns of QPE retrieved using near real-time
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2567
satellite observation and NWP data can ensure successful
nowcasting applications. In addition, the better nonprecipita-
tion/precipitation classification results can be found over ocean
than land due to the homogenous surface. However, we also
find the higher MAE and RMSE in the predicted QPE values
over the ocean, which is closely associated with the high
occurrence frequency of heavy rainfall event.
Better yet, we plan to use the GFS NWP data with a
spatial resolution of 0.25° × 0.25° in the future, which have
already been released real-time for a few months to the China
Meteorological Administration since 2017. In addition, we are
also looking forward to training a new prediction model
based on a whole year data to better support nowcasting
application of the new-generation GEO satellite data, such
as FY-4A and H08. Given the open source nature of such
ML framework as TensorFlow, keras, Pytorch, scikit-learn,
these algorithms under a DL framework richly deserve further
studies to investigate the possibility of predicting or estimating
rain rate from space.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank NASA, JMA, and NOAA
for freely providing the GPM IMERG, Himawari-8, and
GFS NWP data online. They would also like to thank the
Python and Scikit-Learn Groups for providing power computer
tools, and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and
constructive suggestions and comments.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Ding, Z. Wang, and Y. Sun, “Inter-decadal variation of the summer
precipitation in East China and its association with decreasing Asian
summer monsoon,” Int. J. Climatol., vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1139–1161,
2008.
[2] J. Guo et al., “Declining frequency of summertime local-scale precip-
itation over eastern China from 1970 to 2010 and its potential link to
aerosols,” Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 5700–5708, 2017.
[3] M. Min, P. Wang, J. R. Campbell, X. Zong, and Y. Li, “Midlatitude cirrus
cloud radiative forcing over China,” J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., vol. 115,
no. D20, p. D20210, 2010.
[4] R. Yu, T. Zhou, A. Xiong, Y. Zhu, and J. Li, “Diurnal variations
of summer precipitation over contiguous China,” Geophys. Res. Lett.,
vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 223–234, 2007.
[5] M. Min, P. Wang, J. R. Campbell, X. Zong, and J. Xia, “Cirrus cloud
macrophysical and optical properties over North China from CALIOP
measurements,” Adv. Atmos. Sci., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 653–664, 2011.
[6] J. Guo et al., “Delaying precipitation and lightning by air pollution over
the Pearl River Delta. Part I: Observational analyses,” J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos., vol. 121, no. 11, pp. 6472–6488, 2016.
[7] J. Guo et al., “Aerosol-induced changes in the vertical structure of
precipitation: A perspective of TRMM precipitation radar,” Atmos.
Chem. Phys., vol. 18, no. 18, pp. 13329–13343, 2018.
[8] G. J. Huffman, D. T. Bolvin, E. J. Nelkin, and D. B. Wolff, “The TRMM
Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear,
combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales,” J. Hydrometeo-
rol., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 38–55, Feb. 2007.
 2568 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 57, NO. 5, MAY 2019
[9] M. Kühnlein, T. Appelhans, B. Thies, and T. Nauß, “Precipitation
estimates from MSG SEVIRI daytime, nighttime, and twilight data
with random forests,” J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol., vol. 53, no. 11,
pp. 2457–2480, 2014.
[10] G. A. Vicente, R. A. Scofield, and W. P. Menzel, “The operational
GOES infrared rainfall estimation technique,” Bull. Amer. Meteorol.
Soc., vol. 79, no. 9, pp. 1883–1898, 1998.
[11] R. Joyce, J. Janowiak, and G. Huffman, “Latitudinally and seasonally
dependent zenith-angle corrections for geostationary satellite IR bright-
ness temperatures,” J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 40, no. 40, pp. 689–703,
2001.
[12] A. Y. Hou et al., “The global precipitation measurement mission,” Bull.
Amer. Meteorol. Soc., vol. 95, pp. 701–722, May 2014.
[13] R. J. Kuligowski, “GOES-R Advanced Baseline Imager (ABI) algorithm
theoretical basis document for rainfall rate (QPE), version 2.0,”
Algorithm Theor. Basis Document (ATBD), Tech. Rep., 2010, pp. 1–44.
[Online]. Available: https://www.goes-r.gov/products/ATBDs/baseline/
Hydro_RRQPE_v2.0_no_color.pdf
[14] B. Thies, T. Nauss, and J. Bendix, “Discriminating raining from non-
raining cloud areas at mid-latitudes using meteosat second generation
SEVIRI night-time data,” Meteorol. Appl., vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 219–230,
2008.
[15] B. Thies, T. Nauß, and J. Bendix, “Precipitation process and rainfall
intensity differentiation using Meteosat Second Generation Spinning
Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager data,” J. Geophys. Res., Atmos.,
vol. 113, no. D23, 2008.
[16] M. Min et al., “An investigation of the implications of lunar illumination
spectral changes for Day/Night Band-based cloud property retrieval due
to lunar phase transition,” J. Geophys. Res., Atmos., vol. 122, no. 17,
pp. 9233–9244, 2017.
[17] J. Li, J. Huang, K. Stamnes, T. Wang, Q. Lv, and H. Jin, “A global survey
of cloud overlap based on CALIPSO and CloudSat measurements,”
Atmos. Chem. Phys., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 519–536, 2015.
[18] J. Tan, W. A. Petersen, and A. Tokay, “A novel approach to identify
sources of errors in IMERG for GPM ground validation,” J. Hydrome-
teorol., vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 2477–2491, 2016.
[19] Q. Lu, W. Bell, P. Bauer, N. Bormann, and C. Peubey, “An evaluation
of FY-3A satellite data for numerical weather prediction,” Quart. J. Roy.
Meteorol. Soc., vol. 137, no. 658, pp. 1298–1311, 2011.
[20] R. J. Kuligowski, “A self-calibrating real-time GOES rainfall algorithm
for short-term rainfall estimates,” J. Hydrometeorol., vol. 3, no. 2,
pp. 112–130, 2002.
[21] G. Mountrakis, J. Im, and C. Ogole, “Support vector machines in remote
sensing: A review,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 66, no. 3,
pp. 247–259, 2011.
[22] P. E. Utgoff, “Incremental induction of decision trees,” Mach. Learn.,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 161–186, 1989.
[23] L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Mach. Learn., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–32,
2001.
[24] J. Schmidhuber, “Deep learning in neural networks: An overview,”
Neural Netw., vol. 61, pp. 85–117, Jan. 2015.
[25] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521,
pp. 436–444, May 2015.
[26] M. Kühnlein, T. Appelhans, B. Thies, and T. Nauss, “Improving the
accuracy of rainfall rates from optical satellite sensors with machine
learning—A random forests-based approach applied to MSG SEVIRI,”
Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 141, pp. 129–143, Feb. 2014.
[27] D. I. F. Grimes, E. Coppola, M. Verdecchia, and G. Visconti, “A neural
network approach to real-time rainfall estimation for Africa using
satellite data,” J. Hydrometeorol., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1119–1133, 2003.
[28] M. Pal, “Random forest classifier for remote sensing classification,” Int.
J. Remote Sens., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 217–222, 2007.
[29] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” J. Mach.
Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, Oct. 2011.
[30] J. Bergstra et al., “Theano: A CPU and GPU math compiler in Python,”
in Proc. Python Sci. Comput. Conf. (SciPy), 2010, pp. 1–7.
[31] M. Abadi et al., “TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine
learning,” presented at the 12th USENIX Symp. Oper. Syst. Design
Implement., 2016.
[32] J. Schmetz et al., “An introduction to Meteosat Second Generation
(MSG),” Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 977–992, 2002.
[33] T. J. Schmit, M. M. Gunshor, W. P. Menzel, J. Li, and A. S. Bachmeier,
“Introducing the next-generation Advanced Baseline Imager on
GOES-R,” Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., vol. 86, no. 8, pp. 1079–1096,
2005.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[34] T. J. Schmit et al., “The GOES-R Advanced Baseline Imager and the
continuation of current sounder products,” J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.,
vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 2696–2711, 2008.
[35] M. Min et al., “Developing the science product algorithm testbed
for Chinese next-generation geostationary meteorological satellites:
FengYun-4 series,” J. Meteorol. Res., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 708–719,
2017.
[36] J. Yang, Z. Zhang, C. Wei, F. Lu, and Q. Guo, “Introducing the new
generation of Chinese geostationary weather satellites, Fengyun-4,” Bull.
Amer. Meteorol. Soc., vol. 98, no. 8, pp. 1637–1658, Aug. 2017.
[37] G. J. Huffman et al., “NASA Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)
integrated multi-satellite retrievals for GPM (IMERG),” Algorithm
Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD) Version 4.5, 2015, pp. 1–26.
[Online]. Available: https://pmm.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/document_
files/IMERG_ATBD_V4.5.pdf
[38] A. AghaKouchak, A. Mehran, H. Norouzi, and A. Behrangi, “System-
atic and random error components in satellite precipitation data sets,”
Geophys. Res. Lett., vol. 39, no. 9, p. L09406, 2012.
[39] V. Bharti and C. Singh, “Evaluation of error in TRMM 3B42V7
precipitation estimates over the Himalayan region,” J. Geophys. Res.,
Atmos., vol. 120, no. 24, pp. 12458–12473, 2015.
[40] T. J. Greenwald et al., “Real-time simulation of the GOES-R ABI
for user readiness and product evaluation,” Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc.,
vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 245–261, 2016.
[41] D. Chen et al., “The cloud top distribution and diurnal variation of
clouds over East Asia: Preliminary results from Advanced Himawari
Imager,” J. Geophys. Res., Atmos., vol. 123, no. 7, pp. 3724–3739,
Apr. 2018.
[42] S. D. Miller et al., “A sight for sore eyes: The return of true color
to geostationary satellites,” Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., vol. 97, no. 10,
pp. 1803–1816, 2016.
[43] A. K. Heidinger, A. T. Evan, M. J. Foster, and A. Walther, “A naive
Bayesian cloud-detection scheme derived from CALIPSO and applied
within PATMOS-x,” J. Appl. Meteorol. Climate, vol. 51, no. 6,
pp. 1129–1144, 2012.
[44] J. Li et al., “The impact of atmospheric stability and wind shear on
vertical cloud overlap over the Tibetan Plateau,” Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 7329–7343, 2018.
[45] M. Kanamitsu, “Description of the NMC global data assimilation and
forecast system,” Weather Forecasting, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 335–342, 1989.
[46] L. Breiman and A. Cutler. (2013). Random Forests-Classification
Manual. [Online]. Available: http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/;breiman/
RandomForests/cc_home.htm
[47] A. G. Laing and J. M. Fritsch, “The large-scale environments of
the global populations of mesoscale convective complexes,” Monthly
Weather Rev., vol. 128, no. 8, pp. 2756–2776, 2000.
[48] G. J. Zhang, “Roles of tropospheric and boundary layer forcing in the
diurnal cycle of convection in the U.S. Southern great plains,” Geophys.
Res. Lett., vol. 30, no. 24, Dec. 2003.
[49] J. Roman, R. Knuteson, S. Ackerman, and H. Revercomb, “Estimating
minimum detection times for satellite remote sensing of trends in mean
and extreme precipitable water vapor,” J. Climate, vol. 29, no. 22,
pp. 8211–8230, 2016.
[50] Y. Liu, N. V. Chawla, M. P. Harper, E. Shriberg, and A. Stolcke,
“A study in machine learning from imbalanced data for sentence
boundary detection in speech,” Comput. Speech Lang., vol. 20, no. 4,
pp. 468–494, 2006.
[51] M. Min, Y. Zhang, Z. Rong, and L. Dong, “A method for monitoring
the on-orbit performance of a satellite sensor infrared window band by
using oceanic drifters,” Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 382–400,
2014.
[52] T. J. Schmit, J. Li, S. A. Ackerman, and J. J. Gurka, “High-spectral-
and high-temporal-resolution infrared measurements from geostationary
orbit,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 2273–2292,
2009.
[53] Y. Ai, J. Li, W. Shi, T. J. Schmit, C. Cao, and W. Li, “Deep convective
cloud characterizations from both broadband imager and hyperspectral
infrared sounder measurements,” J. Geophys. Res., Atmos., vol. 122,
no. 3, pp. 1700–1712, 2017.
[54] J. Mecikalski, K. Bedka, S. Paech, and L. Litten, “A statistical
evaluation of GOES cloud-top properties for nowcasting convective
initiation,” Monthly Weather Rev., vol. 136, no. 12, pp. 4899–4914,
2008.
[55] M. Grecu and W. F. Krajewski, “A large-sample investigation of
statistical procedures for radar-based short-term quantitative precip-
itation forecasting,” J. Hydrol., vol. 239, nos. 1–4, pp. 69–84,
Dec. 2000.
 MIN et al.: ESTIMATING SUMMERTIME PRECIPITATION FROM HIMAWARI-8 AND GFS BASED ON ML
Min Min received the B.S. degree in applied
meteorology from the Nanjing University of Infor-
mation Science and Technology, Nanjing, China,
in 2005, and the Ph.D. degree in atmospheric physics
and environment from the Institute of Atmospheric
Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
China, in 2010.
From 2013 to 2014, he was a Visiting Research
Assistant with the Department of Physics, University
of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA. He is currently
an Associate Professor with the National Satellite
and Meteorological Center, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing. His
research interests include cloud and weather science algorithms of satellite
remote sensing, atmospheric radiative transfer, and calibration of FengYun
satellite sensor.
Chen Bai received the B.S. degree in optical engi-
neering from the School of Optoelectronics, Beijing
Institute of Technology, Beijing, China, in 2017,
where he is currently pursuing the master’s degree
with the School of Optoelectronics.
Jianping Guo received the Ph.D. degree in cartogra-
phy and geographical information system from the
Institute of Remote Sensing Applications, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, in 2007.
He is currently a Professor with the Chinese Acad-
emy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, where he
leads a team working on aerosol-cloud-precipitation
interaction.
Fenglin Sun received the B.S. degree in commu-
nication engineering from the Ocean University of
China, Qingdao, China, in 2009, and the Ph.D.
degree in magnetic and microwave technology from
the National Space Science Center, Chinese Acad-
emy of Sciences, Beijing, China, in 2014.
Since 2014, he has been an Assistant Professor
with the National Satellite and Meteorological Cen-
ter, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing.
His research interests include convection and pre-
cipitation algorithms of geostationary satellite, mode
recognition, and microwave calibration of FengYun satellite sensor.
Chao Liu received the B.S. degree in physics
from Tongji University, Shanghai, China, in 2009,
and the Ph.D. degree in atmospheric science from
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA,
in 2013.
He is currently a Professor with the School of
Atmospheric Physics, Nanjing University of Infor-
mation Science and Technology, Nanjing, China.
His research interests include light scattering mod-
eling of atmospheric particles, optical properties of
aerosols and ice clouds, and radiative transfer and
remote sensing of clouds.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2569
Fu Wang received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees
in electronic technology from the University of Elec-
tronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu,
China, in 2008, 2011, and 2015, respectively.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with
the National Satellite and Meteorological Cen-
ter, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing,
China. His research interests include cloud algo-
rithms of FengYun satellite sensor and cloud-aerosol
interaction.
Hui Xu received the B.S. degree from Central
South University, Changsha, China, in 2010, and the
Ph.D. degree from the Institute of Remote Sens-
ing Applications, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing, China, in 2015.
She is currently an Assistant Professor with
the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences,
China Meteorological Administration, Beijing. Her
research interests include cloud radiative forcing and
aerosol radiative forcing.
Shihao Tang received the M.S. degree in applied
meteorology from the Nanjing University of Infor-
mation Science and Technology, Nanjing, China,
in 1996, and the Ph.D. degree in remote sensing
sciences from Beijing Normal University, Beijing,
China, in 2001.
He is currently a Professor with the National
Satellite and Meteorological Center, China Meteoro-
logical Administration, Beijing. His research inter-
ests include land and ecology science algorithms of
FengYun satellite sensor.
Bo Li received the B.S. degree in atmospheric
science from Nanjing University, Nanjing, China,
in 2006, and the Ph.D. degree in meteorology from
the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Acad-
emy of Sciences, Beijing, China, in 2011.
She is currently an Associate Professor with
the National Satellite and Meteorological Center,
China Meteorological Administration, Beijing. Her
research interests include cloud phase algorithms of
FengYun satellite and atmospheric circulation.
Di Di received the B.S. degree in atmospheric
science from the Nanjing Meteorological Institute,
Nanjing, China, in 2013, and the M.S. degree in
atmospheric science from the Chinese Academy of
Meteorological Sciences, Beijing, China, in 2016.
She is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree with the
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
Her research interests include high-spectral
atmospheric radiative transfer and satellite data
assimilation.
 2570 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 57, NO. 5, MAY 2019
Lixin Dong received the B.S. degree in applied
meteorology from the Nanjing Meteorological Insti-
tute, Nanjing, China, in 1995, and the Ph.D. degree
from the Institute of Remote Sensing Applications
of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China,
in 2008.
He is currently an Associate Professor with the
National Satellite and Meteorological Center, China
Meteorological Administration, Beijing, where he
is involved in land surface temperature and soil
moisture inversion algorithms of FengYun satellite
image.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Hyderabad IG Memorial Library. Downloaded on September 13,2022 at 04:36:42 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Jun Li received the B.S. degree in mathematics
from Peking University, Beijing, China, in 1987, and
the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in atmospheric science
from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing,
in 1990 and 1996, respectively.
Since 1997, he has been with the Cooperative
Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, Space
Science and Engineering Center (SSEC), University
of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA, where
he was involved in advanced imager/sounder data
processing and applications, especially on the syn-
ergistic use of high-spatial-resolution imager data and high-spectral- resolution
infrared sounder data for deriving atmospheric temperature and moisture
profiles, cloud and aerosol/dust properties, as well as surface properties.
He was involved in the methodologies for improving the assimilation of
hyperspectral infrared sounder measurements for tropical cyclone forecasts
in regional numerical weather prediction models, and also in the development
and application of a retrieval methodology for processing the Advanced
TOVS data from the NOAA- 15/16/17/18/19 polar-orbiting satellites and
the geostationary sounder data from GOES-8/9/10/11/12/13/14/15 satellites
to obtain the real-time atmospheric soundings and derived products.
He is currently the Principal Investigator with SSEC, University of
Wisconsin–Madison, where he is involved in several GOES/POES-related
projects, including International ATOVS Processing Package, GOES-R trade
studies, GOES-R legacy profile product development, GOES-R high-impact
weather studies, JPSS application for tropical cyclone forecasts, and regional
OSSE for future sounding measurement systems.