the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
SUPER v2: A 3-Hourly Global Precipitation Dataset Optimized for Sparse Data Challenges
Abstract. The Statistical Uncertainty analysis-based Precipitation mERging (SUPER) methodology can optimally merge different precipitation datasets with minimal use of ground-based information and is therefore better suited for data-sparse regions. Although a proof-of-concept SUPER framework has already been introduced previously, it contains substantial uncertainties and is only available at a daily timescale, which is inadequate for land surface modeling. In response, we present here a new 3-hourly, 0.1-degree, global SUPER version 2 (v2) dataset, spanning 2000–2023. SUPER v2 is unique in three key aspects: i) it optimizes the number of input precipitation datasets, which reduces data redundancy and mitigates negative biases in extreme precipitation events; ii) it optimally evaluates its internal merging weights and filters out false-alarmed events without reliance on extensive gauge networks; and iii) it employs a multi-scale (i.e., monthly–daily–3-hourly) temporal correction/merging procedure that enhances the robustness of precipitation estimates. The SUPER v2 product is comprehensively evaluated using 5,972 independent gauges. Results show that it has a root-mean-squared-error of 3.64 mm d−1 and correlation coefficient of 0.68 [-] for daily precipitation estimates. These error metrics outperform traditional approaches over 81 % to 86 % of the validation gauges. The superiority of SUPER v2 with regards to rain/no-rain classification skill is even more evident, with Heidke’s Skill Score 22 % higher than commonly used datasets. Similar findings are also demonstrated in the 3-hourly SUPER v2 precipitation dataset. As such, SUPER v2 provides a unique opportunity for enhancing global-scale hydrology and land surface modeling — particularly for data sparse regions.
- Preprint
(3428 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(332 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-792', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Feb 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2025-792/essd-2025-792-RC1-supplement.pdfCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/essd-2025-792-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-792', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Feb 2026
This manuscript presents SUPER v2, a 3‑hourly, 0.1 degree, global precipitation dataset derived through an improved uncertainty-analysis-based merging framework optimized for gauge-sparse regions. The paper is generally well written. The methodological upgrades relative to SUPER v1 (input selection strategy, improved rain/no‑rain filtering, multi-scale correction/merging, and temporal disaggregation from daily to 3-hourly) are well justified and described. The evaluation with 5,972 independent gauges and comparisons against various widely used satellite and reanalysis products demonstrate the improved performance of this newly developed SUPER V2.
Taken together, I think this manuscript worthy of publication in the ESSD. This new dataset would provide many practical values to land surface modelling and hydrological modelling communities.
Below I provide a few comments that the authors can consider to improve the clarity and strengthen the dataset description.
- Abstract. Since the focus of the new dataset is on 3-hourly, a new feature compared to previous version or most existing products, I advise the authors to highlight the accuracy of 3-hourly data first. The current Abstract described the daily accuracy first.
- In-text citations. Please be consistent with the citations style. A few places need correction, for example, on Page 2, L. Y. Wei et al., 2024. Dong, Crow, et al., 2020.
- Data selection. ERA5 vs. ERA5-Land. The ERA5 at 0.25 degree resolution was used in this study. Why not considering ERA5-Land at 0.1 degree already that alleviates the trouble of resampling? beause of its biased performance? Some justification or discussion on the selection of ERA5 instead of ERA5-Land would be appreciated.
- Methods.
4.1. Independence assumptions in QC/TC and CTC-M. I advise the authors to add more description on the independence assumptions required by QC/TC and CTC-M, and how they are approximately met by the selected datasets.
4.2. Resampling method. The nearest-neighbor resampling to 0.1 degree wa used. Please justify why nearest neighbor is preferred over area-weighted averaging or other resampling methods.
4.3. Threshold 5 mm in the correction. Did the authors consider other thresholds and possible influence on the correction results.Justification of the 5 mm threshold would be appreciated.
4.4. Independent evaluation. I appreciated that the authors considered the independence of gauges for evaluation and described such in the Supporting Documents. I remembered that many products do provide additional data on the actual number of used stations for the generation of products. If possible, more quantatitive information on the number of gauges used for the products (e.g. CPC and IMERGE final run, CHIRPS) and how many gauges were not used or overlapping with the '5972 independent gauges' would be great.
5. Minor comments.
5.1. Section numbering. “3.1 Validation” should be “3.2 Validation”.
5.2. Terminology/abbreviation consistency. ECC, EP, QC, TC etc. please double check and ensure that full name is written for such abbreviations at the first occurrence.
5..3. Units. Please check if the RMSE mm/3h is commonly used, or RMSE mm/h would be more appropriate.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-792-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on essd-2025-792', Anonymous Referee #3, 25 Feb 2026
The manuscript presents SUPER v2, a 3-hourly global precipitation dataset derived from an uncertainty-based merging framework and a multi-step correction/downscaling workflow. The topic is well aligned with ESSD, and the dataset has clear potential value for the community. The methodology is generally well described and the manuscript is well written. Below comments are mainly for improving clarity, strengthening the interpretation of several evaluation results, and better justifying a few key methodological choices.
- In Sect. 4.3, some comparisons suggest ERA5 does not always outperform IMERG at 3-hourly scales, yet ERA5 receives higher weights (Fig. 4). The manuscript would benefit from an explicit reconciliation.
- MSWEP is a widely used dataset and is generally reported to outperform raw inputs in many settings. In your 3-hourly evaluation (Fig. 7), MSWEP appears worse than IMERG in some comparisons. Please double check the results and provide some explanations.
- You use nearest-neighbor resampling to align all inputs to 0.1-degree. Please provide a stronger justification for this choice, and briefly discuss potential implications for scale mismatch (e.g., 0.5-degree to 0.1-degree) and whether this could influence collocation-based error estimation and the stability of least-squares merging weights.
- The CTC-M rain/no-rain correction uses CPC, ERA5, and IMERG. Since TC/CTC methods rely on assumptions such as (conditional) independence of errors, it would be helpful to add a brief discussion regarding the error correlation among datasets.
- The source and provenance of the ground stations should be described more explicitly. In addition, please clarify whether these stations overlap with those used in CPC and/or any gauge-related calibration of IMERG or other inputs.
- Sections 4.3 and 4.4 rely on overlapping figures/tables and could be consolidated to improve readability (e.g., streamline repeated descriptions and highlight the distinct takeaways of each section).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-792-RC3
Data sets
SUPER v2 (3-hourly): A 3-Hourly Global Precipitation Dataset Optimized for Sparse Data Challenges Huiwen Zhang and Jianzhi Dong https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30899792
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 213 | 142 | 19 | 374 | 49 | 10 | 29 |
- HTML: 213
- PDF: 142
- XML: 19
- Total: 374
- Supplement: 49
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 29
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1