Advertisement

ARTMIP-early start comparison of atmospheric river detection tools: how many atmospheric rivers hit northern California’s Russian River watershed?

  • F. Martin Ralph
  • Anna M. Wilson
  • Tamara Shulgina
  • Brian Kawzenuk
  • Scott Sellars
  • Jonathan J. Rutz
  • Maryam A. Lamjiri
  • Elizabeth A. Barnes
  • Alexander Gershunov
  • Bin Guan
  • Kyle M. Nardi
  • Tashiana Osborne
  • Gary A. Wick
Article

Abstract

Many atmospheric river detection tools (ARDTs) have now been developed. However, their relative performance is not well documented. This paper compares a diverse set of ARDTs by applying them to a single location where a unique 12-year-long time-series from an atmospheric river observatory at Bodega Bay, California is available. The study quantifies the sensitivity of the diagnosed number, duration, and intensity of ARs at this location to the choice of ARDT, and to the choice of reanalysis data set. The ARDTs compared here represent a range of methods that vary in their use of different variables, fixed vs. percentile-based thresholds, geometric shape requirements, Eulerian vs. Lagrangian approaches, and reanalyses. The ARDTs were evaluated first using the datasets documented in their initial publication, which found an average annual count of 19 ± 7. Applying the ARDTs to the same reanalysis dataset yields an average annual count of 19 ± 4. Applying a single ARDT to three reanalyses of varying grid sizes (0.5°, 1.0°–2.5°) showed little sensitivity to the choice of reanalysis. While the annual average AR event count varied by about a factor of two (10–25 per year) depending on the ARDT, average AR duration and maximum intensity varied by less than ± 10%, i.e., 24 ± 2 h duration; 458 ± 44 kg m− 1 s− 1 maximum IVT. ARDTs that use a much higher threshold for integrated vapor transport were compared separately, and yielded just 1–2 ARs annually on average. Generally, ARDTs that include either more stringent geometric criteria or higher thresholds identified the fewest AR events.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Grant Number W912HZ-15-2-0019 from the US Army Corps of Engineers. It was partially supported, with authors Alexander Gershunov and Tamara Shulgina, by Department of the Interior via the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR-R15AC00003, Seasonal and extended-range predictability of atmospheric rivers and their associated precipitation) and by the California Department of Water Resources (4600010378 UCOP2-11, Development of seasonal outlooks for Atmospheric Rivers). The Atmospheric River Observatory data were provided by NOAA’s Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, from their website at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/. The authors would like to thank UC San Diego Qualcomm/Calit2 and Pacific Research Platform (ACI-1541349) for supporting the PRP/CONNECT pilot project with network data transfer and storage support for the Sellars et al. (2017b) dataset. The authors would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments that helped us to strengthen the paper.

References

  1. AMS (2017) Definition of “atmospheric river” in the glossary of meteorology. http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Atmospheric_river. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
  2. Baggett C, Lee S, Feldstein S (2016) An investigation of the presence of atmospheric rivers over the north Pacific during planetary-scale wave life cycles and their role in Arctic warming. J Atmos Sci 73:4329–4347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blamey R, Ramos A, Trigo R, Tomé R, Reason C (2018) The influence of atmospheric rivers over the South Atlantic on winter rainfall in South Africa. J Hydrometeor.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0111.1 Google Scholar
  4. Brands S, Gutiérrez JM, San-Martín D (2017) Twentieth-century atmospheric river activity along the west coasts of Europe and North America: algorithm formulation, reanalysis uncertainty and links to atmospheric circulation patterns. Clim Dyn 48:2771–2795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dee DP et al (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. QJR Meteorol Soc 137(654):553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeFlorio M, Waliser D, Guan B, Lavers D, Ralph F, Vitart F, (2018) Global assessment of atmospheric river prediction skill. J Hydrometeorol 19:409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dettinger MD (2011) Climate change, atmospheric rivers, and floods in California—a multimodel analysis of storm frequency and magnitude changes. J Am Water Resour Assoc 47:514–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dettinger MD (2013) Atmospheric rivers as drought busters on the U.S. West Coast. J Hydrometeor 14:1721–1732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dettinger MD, Ralph FM, Das T, Neiman PJ, Cayan DR (2011) Atmospheric rivers, floods and the water resources of California. Water 3(2):445–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dettinger MD, Ralph FM, Lavers D (2015) Setting the stage for a global science of atmospheric rivers. EOS Trans Amer Geophys Union.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2015EO038675 Google Scholar
  11. Gelaro R et al (2017) The modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications, version 2 (MERRA-2). J Clim 30:5419–5454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gershunov A, Shulgina TM, Ralph FM, Lavers D, Rutz JJ (2017) Assessing climate-scale variability of atmospheric rivers affecting western North America. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074175 Google Scholar
  13. Guan B, Waliser DE (2015) Detection of atmospheric rivers: evaluation and application of an algorithm for global studies. J Geophys Res Atmos 120:12514–12535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guan B, Waliser DE (2017) Atmospheric rivers in 20 year weather and climate simulations: a multi-model, global evaluation. J Geophys Res Atmos 122:5556–5581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guan B, Waliser DE, Ralph FM (2018) An inter-comparison between reanalysis and dropsonde observations of the total water vapor transport in individual atmospheric rivers. J Hydrometeor 19:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagos SM, Leung LR, Yoon J-H, Lu J, Gao Y (2016) A projection of changes in landfalling atmospheric river frequency and extreme precipitation over western North America from the Large Ensemble CESM simulations. Geophys Res Lett 43:1357–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hecht CW, Cordeira JM (2017) Characterizing the influence of atmospheric river orientation and intensity on precipitation distributions over North-Coastal California. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074179 Google Scholar
  18. Hsu K, Gao X, Sorooshian S (1997) Precipitation estimation from remotely sensed information using artificial neural networks. J Appl Meteorol 36:1176–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson DL, Hughes M, Wick GA (2016) Evaluation of landfalling atmospheric rivers along the U.S. West Coast in reanalysis data sets. J Geophys Res Atmos 121:2705–2718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalnay E et al (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 77(3):437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lamjiri MA, Dettinger MD, Ralph FM, Guan B (2017) Hourly storm characteristics along the U.S. West Coast: role of atmospheric rivers in extreme precipitation. Geophys Res Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074193 Google Scholar
  22. Lavers DA, Villarini G (2015) The contribution of atmospheric rivers to precipitation in Europe and the United States. J Hydrol 522:382–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lavers DA, Villarini G, Allan RP, Wood EF, Wade AJ (2012) The detection of atmospheric rivers in atmospheric reanalyses and their links to British winter floods and the large-scale climatic circulation. J Geophys Res 117:D20106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lavers DA, Allan RP, Villarini G, Lloyd-Hughes B, Brayshaw DJ, Wade AJ (2013) Future changes in atmospheric rivers and their implications for winter flooding in Britain. Environ Res Lett 8:034010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lavers DA, Ralph FM, Waliser DE, Gershunov A, Dettinger MD (2015) Climate change intensification of horizontal water vapor transport in CMIP5. Geophys Res Lett 42:5617–5625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lavers DA, Waliser DE, Ralph FM, Dettinger MD (2016) Predictability of horizontal water vapor transport relative to precipitation: Enhancing situational awareness for forecasting Western U.S. extreme precipitation and flooding. Geophys Res Lett 43:2275–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Livneh B, Rosenberg EA, Lin C, Nijssen B, Mishra V, Andreadis KM, Maurer EP, Lettenmaier DP (2013) A long-term hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States: update and extensions. J Clim 26:9384–9392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lora JM, Mitchell JL, Risi C, Tripati AE (2017) North Pacific atmospheric rivers and their influence on western North America at the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophys Res Lett 44:1051–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mahoney K, Jackson DL, Neiman PJ, Hughes M, Darby L, Wick G, White AB, Sukovich E, Cifelli R (2016) Understanding the role of atmospheric rivers in heavy precipitation in the southeast United States. Mon Weather Rev 144:1617–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mundhenk BD, Barnes EA, Maloney ED (2016) All-season climatology and variability of atmospheric river frequencies over the North Pacific. J Clim 29:4885–4903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newell RE, Zhu Y (1994) Tropospheric rivers: a one-year record and a possible application to ice core data. Geophys Res Lett 21:113–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newell RE, Newell NE, Zhu Y, Scott C (1992) Tropospheric rivers?—a pilot study. Geophys Res Lett 19:2401–2404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ralph FM, Dettinger MD (2012) Historical and national perspectives on extreme West Coast precipitation associated with atmospheric rivers during December 2010. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ralph FM, Neiman PJ, Wick GA (2004) Satellite and CALJET aircraft observations of atmospheric rivers over the eastern North Pacific Ocean during the winter of 1997/98. Mon Weather Rev 132:1721–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ralph FM, Neiman PJ, Wick GA, Gutman SI, Dettinger MD, Cayan DR, White AB (2006) Flooding on California’s Russian River: role of atmospheric rivers. Geophys Res Lett 33:L13801.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ralph FM, Coleman T, Neiman PJ, Zamora RJ, Dettinger MD (2013) Observed impacts of duration and seasonality of atmospheric-river landfalls on soil moisture and runoff in coastal northern California. J Hydrometeorol 14:443–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ralph FM, Iacobellus SF, Neiman PJ, Cordeira JM, Spackman JR, Waliser DE, Wick GA, White AB, Fairall C (2017) Dropsonde observations of total water vapor transport within North Pacific atmospheric rivers. J Hydrometeorol 18:2577–2596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ralph FM, Dettinger MD, Cairns MM, Galarneau T, Eylander J (2018) Development of the definition of the term “atmospheric river” for the Glossary of Meteorology. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 99:837–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramos AM, Tome R, Trigo RM, Liberato MLR, Pinto JG (2016) Projected changes in atmospheric rivers affecting Europe in CMIP5 models. Geophys Res Lett 43:9315–9323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rienecker MM et al (2011) MERRA: NASA’s modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications. J Clim 24:3624–3648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rutz JJ, Steenburgh WJ, Ralph FM (2014) Climatological characteristics of atmospheric rivers and their inland penetration over the western United States. Mon Weather Rev 142:905–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sellars S, Nguyen P, Chu W, Gao X, Hsu K-I, Sorooshian S (2013) Computational Earth science: Big data transformed into insight. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 94:277–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sellars SL, Kawzenuk B, Nguyen P, Ralph FM, Sorooshian S (2017a) Genesis, pathways, and terminations of intense global water vapor transport in association with large-scale climate patterns. Geophys Res Lett 44:12465–12475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sellars SL, Nguyen P, Kawzenuk B (2017b) The CONNected object, or CONNECT algorithm applied to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Modern-era retrospective analysis for research and applications, version 2 (MERRA V2)—integrated water vapor from 1980 to 2016. UC San Diego Library Digital Collections.  https://doi.org/10.6075/J01834P8
  45. Shields C et al (2018) Atmospheric river tracking method intercomparison project (ARTMIP): project goals and experimental design. Geosci Model Dev 11:2455–2474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, Mackaro J (2011) Atmospheric moisture transports from ocean to land and global energy flows in reanalyses. J Clim 24(18):4907–4924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waliser D, Guan B (2017) Extreme winds and precipitation during landfall of atmospheric rivers. Nat Geosci 10:179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warner MD, Mass CF, Salathe EP Jr (2015) Changes in winter atmospheric rivers along the North American West Coast in CMIP5 climate models. J Hydrometeorol 16:118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. White AB, co-authors (2013) A twenty-first-century California observing network for monitoring extreme weather events. J Atmos Oceanic Technol 30:1585–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wick GA (2014) Implementation and initial application of an atmospheric river detection tool based on integrated vapor transport. 2014 Fall Meeting, San Francisco, Amer. Geophys. Union, Abstract A34E-06Google Scholar
  51. Wick GA, Neiman PJ, Ralph FM (2013a) Description and validation of an automated objective technique for identification and characterization of the integrated water vapor signature of atmospheric rivers. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 51:2166–2176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wick GA, Neiman PJ, Ralph FM, Hamill TM (2013b) Evaluation of forecasts of the water vapor signature of atmospheric rivers in operational numerical weather prediction models. Weather Forecast 28:1337–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Young AM, Skelly KT, Cordeira JM (2017) High-impact hydrologic events and atmospheric rivers in California: an investigation using the NCEI Storm Events Database. Geophys Res Lett 44:3393–3401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhu Y, Newell RE (1994) Atmospheric rivers and bombs. Geophys Res Lett 21:1999–2002.  https://doi.org/10.1029/94GL01710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhu Y, Newell RE (1998) A proposed algorithm for moisture fluxes from atmospheric rivers. Mon Weather Rev 126:725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Martin Ralph
    • 1
  • Anna M. Wilson
    • 1
  • Tamara Shulgina
    • 1
  • Brian Kawzenuk
    • 1
  • Scott Sellars
    • 1
  • Jonathan J. Rutz
    • 2
  • Maryam A. Lamjiri
    • 1
  • Elizabeth A. Barnes
    • 3
  • Alexander Gershunov
    • 1
  • Bin Guan
    • 4
  • Kyle M. Nardi
    • 3
  • Tashiana Osborne
    • 1
  • Gary A. Wick
    • 5
  1. 1.Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of OceanographyUniversity of California San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.NOAA/NWS/Western Region HeadquartersSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of Atmospheric ScienceColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory/Physical Sciences DivisionBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations