Search for: All records

Abstract. Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are the primary mechanism for transporting water vapor from low latitudes to polar regions, playing a significant role in extreme weather in both the Arctic and Antarctica. With the rapidly growing interest in polar ARs during the past decade, it is imperative to establish an objective framework quantifying the strength and impact of these ARs for both scientific research and practical applications. The AR scale introduced by Ralph et al. (2019) ranks ARs based on the duration of AR conditions and the intensity of integrated water vapor transport (IVT). However, the thresholds of IVT used to rank ARs are selected based on the IVT climatology at middle latitudes. These thresholds are insufficient for polar regions due to the substantially lower temperature and moisture content. In this study, we analyze the IVT climatology in polar regions, focusing on the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland. Then we introduce an extended version of the AR scale tuned to polar regions by adding lower IVT thresholds of 100, 150, and 200 kg m−1 s−1 to the standard AR scale, which starts at 250 kg m−1 s−1. The polar AR scale is utilized to examine AR frequency, seasonality, trends, and associated precipitation and surface melt over Antarctica and Greenland. Our results show that the polar AR scale better characterizes the strength and impacts of ARs in the Antarctic and Arctic regions than the original AR scale and has the potential to enhance communication across observational, research, and forecasting communities in polar regions. 

Abstract The quantitative characterization and prediction of localized severe weather events that emerge as coherences generated by the highly non-linear interacting multivariate dynamics of global weather systems poses a significant challenge whose solution is increasingly important in the face of climate change where weather extremes are on the rise. As weather measurement systems (multiband satellite, radar, etc) continue to dramatically improve, increasingly complex time-dependent multivariate 3D datasets offer the potential to inform such problems but pose an increasingly daunting computational challenge. Here we describe the application to global weather systems of a novel computational method called the Entropy Field Decomposition (EFD) capable of efficiently characterizing coherent spatiotemporal structures in non-linear multivariate interacting physical systems. Using the EFD derived system configurations, we demonstrate the application of a second novel computational method called Space-Time Information Trajectories (STITs) that reveal how spatiotemporal coherences are dynamically connected. The method is demonstrated on the specific phenomenon known as atmospheric rivers (ARs) which are a prime example of a highly coherent, in both space and time, severe weather phenomenon whose generation and persistence are influenced by weather dynamics on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. The EFD reveals how the interacting wind vector field and humidity scalar field couple to produce ARs, while the resulting STITS reveal the linkage between ARs and large-scale planetary circulations. The focus on ARs is also motivated by their devastating social and economic effects that have made them the subject of increasing scientific investigation to which the EFD may offer new insights. The application of EFD and STITs to the broader range of severe weather events is discussed. 

These datasets accompany a publication in Geophysical Research Letters by Martens et al. (2024), entitled: "GNSS Geodesy Quantifies Water-Storage Gains and Drought Improvements in California Spurred by Atmospheric Rivers." Please refer to the manuscript and supporting information for additional details.Dataset 1: Seasonal Changes in TWS based on the Mean and Median of the Solution SetWe estimate net gains in water storage during the fall and winter of each year (October to March) using the mean TWS solutions from all nine inversion products, subtracting the average storage for October from the average storage for March in the following year. One-sigma standard deviations are computed as the square root of the sum of the variances for October and for March. The variance in each month is computed based on the nine independent estimates of mean monthly storage (see “GNSS Analysis and Inversion” in the Supporting Information).The dataset includes net gains in water storage for both the Sierra Nevada and the SST watersheds (see header lines). For each watershed, results are provided in units of volume (km³) and in units of equivalent water height (mm). Furthermore, for each watershed, we also provide the total storage gains based on non-detrended and linearly detrended time series. In columns four and five, respectively, we provide estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) from SNODAS (National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center, 2023) and water-storage changes in surface reservoirs from CDEC (California Data Exchange Center, 2023). In the final column, we provide estimates of net gains in subsurface storage (soil moisture plus groundwater), which are computed by subtracting SWE and reservoir storage from total storage.For each data block, the columns are: (1) time period (October of the starting year to March of the following year); (2) average gain in total water storage constrained by nine inversions of GNSS data; (3) one-sigma standard deviation in the average gain in total water storage; (4) gain in snow water equivalent, computed by subtracting the average snow storage in October from the average snow storage in March of the following year; (5) gain in reservoir storage (CDEC database; within the boundaries of each watershed), computed by subtracting the average reservoir storage in October from the average reservoir storage in March of the following year; and (6) average gain in subsurface water storage, estimated as the average gain in total water storage minus the average gain in snow storage minus the gain in reservoir storage.For the period from October 2022 to March 2023, we also compute mean gains in total water storage using daily estimates of TWS. Here, we subtract the average storage for the first week in October 2022 (1-7 October) from the average storage for the last week in March 2023 (26 March – 1 April). The one-sigma standard deviation is computed as the square root of the sum of the variances for the first week in October and the last week in March. The variance in each week is computed based on the nine independent estimates of daily storage over seven days (63 values per week). The storage gains for 2022-2023 computed using these methods are distinguished in the datafile by an asterisk (2022-2023*; final row in each data section).Dataset 1a provides estimates of storage changes based on the mean and standard deviation of the solution set. Dataset 1b provides estimates of storage changes based on the median and inter-quartile range of the solution set.Dataset 2: Estimated Changes in TWS in the Sierra NevadaChanges in TWS (units of volume: km³) in the Sierra Nevada watersheds. The first column represents the date (YYYY-MM-DD). For monthly solutions, the TWS solutions apply to the month leading up to that date. The remaining nine columns represent each of the nine solutions described in the text. “UM” represents the University of Montana, “SIO” represents the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and “JPL” represents the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. “NGL” refers to the use of GNSS analysis products from the Nevada Geodetic Laboratory, “CWU” refers to Central Washington University, and “MEaSUREs” refers to the Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments program. The time series have not been detrended.We highlight that we have added changes in reservoir storage (see Dataset 8) back into the JPL solutions, since reservoir storage had been modeled and removed from the GNSS time series prior to inversion in the JPL workflow (see “Detailed Description of Methods” in the Supporting Information). Thus, the storage values presented here for JPL differ slightly from storage values pulled directly from Dataset 6 and integrated over the area of the Sierra Nevada watersheds.Dataset 3: Estimated Changes in TWS in the Sacramento-San Joaquin-Tulare BasinSame as Dataset 2, except that data apply to the Sacramento-San Joaquin-Tulare (SST) Basin.Dataset 4: Inversion Products (SIO)Inversion solutions (NetCDF format) for TWS changes across the western US from January 2006 through March 2023. The products were produced at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) using the methods described in the Supporting Information.Dataset 5: Inversion Products (UM)Inversion solutions (NetCDF format) for TWS changes across the western US from January 2006 through March 2023. The products were produced at the University of Montana (UM) using the methods described in the Supporting Information.Dataset 6: Inversion Products (JPL)Inversion solutions (NetCDF format) for TWS changes across the western US from January 2006 through March 2023. The products were produced at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) using the methods described in the Supporting Information.Dataset 7: Lists of Excluded StationsStations are excluded from an inversion for TWS change based on a variety of criteria (detailed in the Supporting Information), including poroelastic behavior, high noise levels, and susceptibility to volcanic deformation. This dataset provides lists of excluded stations from each institution generating inversion products (SIO, UM, JPL).Dataset 8: Lists of Reservoirs and LakesLists of reservoirs and lakes from the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) (California Data Exchange Center, 2023), which are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of the main manuscript. In the interest of figure clarity, Figure 1 depicts only those reservoirs that exhibited volume changes of at least 0.15 km³ during the first half of WY23.Dataset 8a includes all reservoirs and lakes in California that exhibited volume changes of at least 0.15 km³ between October 2022 and March 2023. The threshold of 0.15 km³ represents a natural break in the distribution of volume changes at all reservoirs and lakes in California over that period (169 reservoirs and lakes in total). Most of the 169 reservoirs and lakes exhibited volume changes near zero km³. Datasets 8b and 8c include subsets of reservoirs and lakes (from Dataset 8a) that fall within the boundaries of the Sierra Nevada and SST watersheds.Furthermore, in the JPL data-processing and inversion workflow (see “Detailed Description of Methods” in the Supporting Information), surface displacements induced by volume changes in select lakes and reservoirs are modeled and removed from GNSS time series prior to inversion. The water-storage changes in the lakes and reservoirs are then added back into the solutions for water storage, derived from the inversion of GNSS data. Dataset 8d includes the list of reservoirs used in the JPL workflow.Dataset 9: Interseismic Strain Accumulation along the Cascadia Subduction ZoneJPL and UM remove interseismic strain accumulation associated with locking of the Cascadia subduction zone using an updated version of the Li et al. model (Li et al., 2018); see Supporting Information Section 2d. The dataset lists the east, north, and up velocity corrections (in the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th columns of the dataset, respectively) at each station; units are mm/year. The station ID, latitude, and longitude are listed in columns one, two, and three, respectively, of the dataset.Dataset 10: Days Impacted by Atmospheric RiversA list of days impacted by atmospheric rivers within (a) the HUC-2 boundary for California from 1 January 2008 until 1 April 2023 [Dataset 10a] and (b) the Sierra Nevada and SST watersheds from 1 October 2022 until 1 April 2023 [Dataset 10b]. File formats: [decimal year; integrated water-vapor transport (IVT) in kg m^-1 s^-1; AR category; and calendar date as a two-digit year followed by a three-character month followed by a two-digit day]. The AR category reflects the peak intensity anywhere within the watershed. We use the detection and classification methods of (Ralph et al., 2019; Rutz et al., 2014, 2019). See also Supporting Information Section 2i.Dataset 10c provides a list of days and times when ARs made landfall along the California coast between October 1980 and September 2023, based on the MERRA-2 reanalysis using the methods of (Rutz et al., 2014, 2019). Only coastal grid cells are included. File format: [year, month, day, hour, latitude, longitude, and IVT in kg m^-1 s^-1]. Values are sorted by time (year, month, day, hour) and then by latitude. See also Supporting Information Section 2g. 

Abstract The Year of Polar Prediction in the Southern Hemisphere (YOPP-SH) held seven targeted observing periods (TOPs) during the 2022 austral winter to enhance atmospheric predictability over the Southern Ocean and Antarctica. The TOPs of 5–10-day duration each featured the release of additional radiosonde balloons, more than doubling the routine sounding program at the 24 participating stations run by 14 nations, together with process-oriented observations at selected sites. These extra sounding data are evaluated for their impact on forecast skill via data denial experiments with the goal of refining the observing system to improve numerical weather prediction for winter conditions. Extensive observations focusing on clouds and precipitation primarily during atmospheric river (AR) events are being applied to refine model microphysical parameterizations for the ubiquitous mixed-phase clouds that frequently impact coastal Antarctica. Process studies are being facilitated by high-time-resolution series of observations and forecast model output via the YOPP Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (YOPPsiteMIIP). Parallel investigations are broadening the scope and impact of the YOPP-SH winter TOPs. Studies of the Antarctic tourist industry’s use of weather services show the scope for much greater awareness of the availability of forecast products and the skill they exhibit. The Sea Ice Prediction Network South (SIPN South) analysis of predictions of the sea ice growth period reveals that the forecast skill is superior to the sea ice retreat phase. 

Abstract The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) experienced a new extreme warm event and record-high surface melt in February 2022, rivaling the recent temperature records from 2015 and 2020, and contributing to the alarming series of extreme warm events over this region showing stronger warming compared to the rest of Antarctica. Here, the drivers and impacts of the event are analyzed in detail using a range of observational and modeling data. The northern/northwestern AP was directly impacted by an intense atmospheric river (AR) attaining category 3 on the AR scale, which brought anomalous heat and rainfall, while the AR-enhanced foehn effect further warmed its northeastern side. The event was triggered by multiple large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns linking the AR formation to tropical convection anomalies and stationary Rossby waves, with an anomalous Amundsen Sea Low and a record-breaking high-pressure system east of the AP. This multivariate and spatial compound event culminated in widespread and intense surface melt across the AP. Circulation analog analysis shows that global warming played a role in the amplification and increased probability of the event. Increasing frequency of such events can undermine the stability of the AP ice shelves, with multiple local to global impacts, including acceleration of the AP ice mass loss and changes in sensitive ecosystems. 

Abstract California experienced a historic run of nine consecutive landfalling atmospheric rivers (ARs) in three weeks’ time during winter 2022/23. Following three years of drought from 2020 to 2022, intense landfalling ARs across California in December 2022–January 2023 were responsible for bringing reservoirs back to historical averages and producing damaging floods and debris flows. In recent years, the Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes and collaborating institutions have developed and routinely provided to end users peer-reviewed experimental seasonal (1–6 month lead time) and subseasonal (2–6 week lead time) prediction tools for western U.S. ARs, circulation regimes, and precipitation. Here, we evaluate the performance of experimental seasonal precipitation forecasts for winter 2022/23, along with experimental subseasonal AR activity and circulation forecasts during the December 2022 regime shift from dry conditions to persistent troughing and record AR-driven wetness over the western United States. Experimental seasonal precipitation forecasts were too dry across Southern California (likely due to their overreliance on La Niña), and the observed above-normal precipitation across Northern and Central California was underpredicted. However, experimental subseasonal forecasts skillfully captured the regime shift from dry to wet conditions in late December 2022 at 2–3 week lead time. During this time, an active MJO shift from phases 4 and 5 to 6 and 7 occurred, which historically tilts the odds toward increased AR activity over California. New experimental seasonal and subseasonal synthesis forecast products, designed to aggregate information across institutions and methods, are introduced in the context of this historic winter to provide situational awareness guidance to western U.S. water managers. 

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are long, narrow synoptic scale weather features important for Earth’s hydrological cycle typically transporting water vapor poleward, delivering precipitation important for local climates. Understanding ARs in a warming climate is problematic because the AR response to climate change is tied to how the feature is defined. The Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP) provides insights into this problem by comparing 16 atmospheric river detection tools (ARDTs) to a common data set consisting of high resolution climate change simulations from a global atmospheric general circulation model. ARDTs mostly show increases in frequency and intensity, but the scale of the response is largely dependent on algorithmic criteria. Across ARDTs, bulk characteristics suggest intensity and spatial footprint are inversely correlated, and most focus regions experience increases in precipitation volume coming from extreme ARs. The spread of the AR precipitation response under climate change is large and dependent on ARDT selection. 

Abstract Using a high-resolution atmospheric general circulation model simulation of unprecedented ensemble size, we examine potential predictability of monthly anomalies under El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forcing and back-ground internal variability. This study reveals the pronounced month-to-month evolution of both the ENSO forcing signal and internal variability. Internal variance in upper-level geopotential height decreases (∼ 10%) over the North Pacific during El Niño as the westerly jet extends eastward, allowing forced signals to account for a greater fraction of the total variability, and leading to increased potential predictability. We identify February and March of El Niño years as the most predictable months using a signal-to-noise analysis. In contrast, December, a month typically included in teleconnection studies, shows little-to-no potential predictability. We show that the seasonal evolution of SST forcing and variability leads to significant signal-to-noise relationships that can be directly linked to both upper-level and surface variable predictability for a given month. The stark changes in forced response, internal variability, and thus signal-to-noise across an ENSO season indicate that subseasonal fields should be used to diagnose potential predictability over North America associated with ENSO teleconnections. Using surface air temperature and precipitation as examples, this study provides motivation to pursue ‘windows of forecast opportunity’, in which statistical skill can be developed, tested, and leveraged to determine times and regions in which this skill may be elevated. 

Abstract. Ice nucleating particles (INP) have been found to influence the amount, phase, and efficiency of precipitation from winter storms, including atmospheric rivers. Warm INP, those that initiate freezing at temperatures warmer than −10°C, are thought to be particularly impactful because they can create primary ice in mixed-phase clouds, enhancing precipitation efficiency. The dominant sources of warm INP during atmospheric rivers, the role of meteorology in modulating transport and injection of warm INP into atmospheric river clouds and the impact of warm INP on mixed-phase cloud properties are not well-understood. Time-resolved precipitation samples were collected during an atmospheric river in Northern California, USA during winter 2016. Precipitation was collected at two sites, one coastal and one inland, that are separated by less than 35km. The sites are sufficiently close that airmass sources during this storm were almost identical, but the inland site was exposed to terrestrial sources of warm INP while the coastal site was not. Warm INP were more numerous in precipitation at the inland site by an order of magnitude. Using FLEXPART dispersion modelling and radar-derived cloud vertical structure, we detected influence from terrestrial INP sources at the inland site, but did not find clear evidence of marine warm INP at either site. We episodically detected warm INP from long-range transported sources at both sites. By extending the FLEXPART modelling using a meteorological reanalysis, we demonstrate that long-range transported warm INP are observed only when the upper tropospheric jet provided transport to cloud tops. Using radar-derived hydrometeor classifications, we demonstrate that hydrometeors over the terrestrially-influenced inland site were more likely to be in the ice phase for cloud temperatures between 0°C and −10°C. We thus conclude that terrestrial and long-range transported aerosol were important sources of warm INP during this atmospheric river. Meteorological details such as transport mechanism and cloud structure were important in determining warm INP source strength and injection temperature, and ultimately the impact of warm INP on mixed phase cloud properties.