Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics

, Volume 127, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Modeling studies of landfalling atmospheric rivers and orographic precipitation over northern California

  • Arthur J. EiserlohJr.
  • Sen ChiaoEmail author
Original Paper


This study investigated a slow-moving long-wave trough that brought four Atmospheric Rivers (AR) “episodes” within a week to the U.S. West Coast from 28 November to 3 December 2012, bringing over 500 mm to some coastal locations. The highest 6- and 12-hourly rainfall rates (131 and 195 mm, respectively) over northern California occurred during Episode 2 along the windward slopes of the coastal Santa Lucia Mountains. Surface observations from NOAA’s Hydrometeorological Testbed sites in California, available GPS Radio Occultation (RO) vertical profiles from the Constellation Observing System for Meteorology Ionosphere and Climate (COSMIC) satellite mission were both assimilated into WRF-ARW via eight combinations of observation nudging, grid nudging, and 3DVAR to improve the upstream moisture characteristics and quantitative precipitation forecast (QPF) during this event. Results during the 6-hourly rainfall maximum period in Episode 2 revealed that the models underestimated the observed 6-hourly rainfall rate maximum on the windward slopes of the Santa Lucia mountain range. The grid-nudging experiments smoothed out finer mesoscale details in the inner domain that may affect the final QPFs. Overall, the experiments that did not use grid nudging were more accurate in terms of less mean absolute error. In the time evolution of the accumulated rainfall forecast, the observation nudging experiment that included RAOB and COSMIC GPS RO data demonstrated results with the least error for the north central Coastal Range and the 3DVAR cold-start experiment demonstrated the least error for the windward Sierra Nevada. The experiment that combined 3DVAR cold start, observation nudging, and grid nudging showed the most error in the rainfall forecasts. Results from this study further suggest that including surface observations at frequencies less than 3 h for observation nudging and having cycling intervals less than 3 h for 3DVAR cycling would be more beneficial for short-to-medium range mesoscale QPFs during high-impact AR events over northern California.


Data Assimilation Radio Occultation Windward Slope Integrate Water Vapor Data Assimilation Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The critical reviews of anonymous reviewers were very helpful. We thank Timothy Coleman from NOAA/ESRL for assistance with the HMT dataset, Cindy Bruyere from UCAR in assistance with the WRF data assimilation methods, and the other suppliers of the data used. The research was supported by the Grant W911NF-09-1-0441 from the US Army Research Office.


  1. Anthes RA et al (2008) The COSMIC/FORMOSAT-3 mission: early results. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 89:313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker DM, Huang W, Guo YR, Bourgeois AJ, Xiao QN (2004) A three-dimensional variational data assimilation system for MM5: implementation and initial results. Mon Wea Rev 132:897–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chin NH, Caldwell PM, Bader DC (2010) Preliminary study of California wintertime model wet bias. Mon Wea Rev 138:3556–3571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cucurull L, Derber JC, Treadon R, Purser RJ (2007) Assimilation of global positioning system radio occultation observations into NCEP’s global data assimilation system. Mon Wea Rev 135:3174–3193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dettinger MD (2011) Climate change, atmospheric rivers, and floods in California—a multimodel analysis of storm frequency and magnitude changes. J Amer Water Resour Assoc 47:514–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doyle JD (1997) The influence of mesoscale orography on a coastal jet and rainband. Mon Wea Rev 125:1465–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fulton RA, Breidenbach JP, Seo DJ, Miller DA, O’Bannon T (1998) The WSR-88D rainfall algorithm. Wea Forecast 13:377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garvert MF, Colle BA, Mass CF (2005) The 13–14 December 2001 IMPROVE-2 event. Part I: synoptic and mesoscale evolution and comparison with a mesoscale model simulation. J Atmos Sci 62:3474–3492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hahn RS, Mass CF (2009) The impact of positive-definite moisture advection and low-level moisture flux bias over orography. Mon Wea Rev 137:3055–3071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hong SY, Noh Y, Dudhia J (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Wea Rev 134:2318–2341. doi: 10.1175/MWR3199.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang H (2014) Introduction to WRFDA. WRF Tutorial, NCAR, Boulder, Colorado. Accessed Jan 2014
  12. Jankov I, Schultz PJ, Anderson CJ, Koch SE (2007) The impact of different physical parameterizations and their interactions on cold season QPF in the American River Basin. J Hydrometeorol 8:1141–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lin YL, Chiao S, Wang TA, Kaplan ML, Weglarz RP (2001) Some common ingredients for heavy orographic rainfall. Wea Forecast 16:633–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu Y, Chen F, Warner T, Basara J (2006) Verification of a mesoscale data-assimilation and forecasting system for the Oklahoma City area during the Joint Urban 2003 field project. J Appl Meteor Climatol 45:912–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ma Z, Kuo YH, Ralph FM, Neiman PJ, Wick GA, Sukovich E, Wang B (2011) Assimilation of GPS radio occultation data for an intense atmospheric river with the NCEP regional GSI system. Mon Wea Rev 139:2170–2183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neiman PJ, Ralph FM, White AB, Kingsmill DE, Persson PG (2002) The statistical relationship between upslope flow and rainfall in California’s coastal mountains: observations during CALJET. Mon Wea Rev 130:1468–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neiman PJ, Ralph FM, Wick GA, Lundquist JD, Dettinger MD (2008) Meteorological characteristics and overland precipitation impacts of atmospheric rivers affecting the West Coast of North America based on eight years of SSM/I satellite observations. J Hydrometeorol 9:22–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neiman PJ, Schick LJ, Ralph FM, Hughes M, Wick GA (2011) Flooding in western Washington: the connection to atmospheric rivers. J Hydrometeorol 12:1337–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NOAA (2014) cited NOAA’s Hydrometeorology Testbed: Overview. Accessed 14 Apr 2014
  20. Northrop Grumman (2002) Algorithm and data user manual (ADUM) for the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS). Technical Report, 1–65 ppGoogle Scholar
  21. Pattantyus A (2011) Optimizing strategies for an observation-nudging-based four-dimensional data assimilation forecast approach with WRF-ARW. Science and Engineering Apprenticeship Program, Adelphi, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  22. Ralph FM, Dettinger MD (2012) Historical and national perspectives on extreme west coast precipitation associated with atmospheric rivers during December 2010. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 93:783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ralph FM et al (2003) The impact of a prominent rain shadow on flooding in California’s Santa Cruz mountains: a CALJET case study and sensitivity to the ENSO cycle. J Hydrometeorol 4:1243–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ralph FM, Neiman PJ, Wick GA (2004) Satellite and CALJET aircraft observations of atmospheric rivers over the eastern North-Pacific Ocean during the El Niño winter of 1997/98. Mon Wea Rev 132:1721–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ralph FM, Neiman PJ, Rotunno R (2005) Dropsonde observations in low-level jets over the northeastern Pacific Ocean from CALJET-1998 and PACJET-2001: mean vertical-profile and atmospheric-river characteristics. Mon Wea Rev 133:889–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richard E et al (2005) Quantitative precipitation forecasting in mountains regions—pushed ahead by MAP. Croat Meteorol J 40:65–69Google Scholar
  27. Skamarock WC et al (2008) A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 3. NCAR Tech Note NCAR/TN-475 + STR, 113 pp.
  28. Stauffer DR, Seaman NL (1994) Multiscale four-dimensional data assimilation. J Appl Meteor 33:416–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson G, Rasmussen RM, Manning K (2004) Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. part I: description and sensitivity analysis. Mon Wea Rev 132:519–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wick GA et al (2008) Intercomparison of integrated water vapor retrievals from SSM/I and COSMIC. Geophys Res Lett 35:L21805Google Scholar
  31. Wentz FJ (1997) A well-calibrated ocean algorithm for special sensor microwave/imager. J Geophys Res 102:8703–8718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. World Meteorological Organization (2010) Manual on the Global Data-processing and Forecasting System: Volume I—Global Aspects, WMO-No. 485. Geneva SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  33. Yu W, Liu Y, Warner T (2007) An evaluation of 3DVAR, nudging-based FDDA, and a hybrid scheme for summer convection forecasts using the WRF-ARW model. 18th Conference on Numerical Weather Prediction, 25–29 June 2007, Park City, Utah. P2.8Google Scholar
  34. Zhu Y, Newell RE (1998) A proposed algorithm for moisture fluxes from atmospheric rivers. Mon Wea Rev 126:725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Meteorology and Climate ScienceSan Jose State UniversitySan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations