Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for :
- Author or Editor: Trent W. Ford x
- Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Abstract
In this study, the robustness of a previously developed classification system that categorizes convective thunderstorm events initiated during various synoptic and dynamic conditions is analyzed. This classification system was used to distinguish between organized and unorganized convection and then used to determine whether unorganized convection occurs preferentially over wet or dry soils. The focus is on 12 events that occurred in synoptically benign (SB) environments where the Great Plains low-level jet was not present (noLLJ), and whether these events were accurately classified as unorganized convection is evaluated. Although there is a small sample size, the results show that the classification system fails to differentiate between local unorganized convection and large-scale organized convection under SB–noLLJ conditions. The authors conclude that past studies that have used this classification to study how soil moisture influences unorganized convection should be revisited. Additional variables and/or alternative precipitation datasets should be employed to enhance the robustness of the classification system.
Abstract
In this study, the robustness of a previously developed classification system that categorizes convective thunderstorm events initiated during various synoptic and dynamic conditions is analyzed. This classification system was used to distinguish between organized and unorganized convection and then used to determine whether unorganized convection occurs preferentially over wet or dry soils. The focus is on 12 events that occurred in synoptically benign (SB) environments where the Great Plains low-level jet was not present (noLLJ), and whether these events were accurately classified as unorganized convection is evaluated. Although there is a small sample size, the results show that the classification system fails to differentiate between local unorganized convection and large-scale organized convection under SB–noLLJ conditions. The authors conclude that past studies that have used this classification to study how soil moisture influences unorganized convection should be revisited. Additional variables and/or alternative precipitation datasets should be employed to enhance the robustness of the classification system.
Abstract
The ability to use in situ soil moisture for large-scale soil moisture monitoring, model and satellite validation, and climate investigations is contingent on properly standardizing soil moisture observations. Percentiles are a useful method for homogenizing in situ soil moisture. However, very few stations have been continuously monitoring in situ soil moisture for 20 years or more. Therefore, one challenge in evaluating soil moisture is determining whether the period of record is sufficient to produce a stable distribution from which to generate percentiles. In this study daily in situ soil moisture observations, measured at three separate depths in the soil column at 15 stations in the United States and Canada, are used to determine the record length that is necessary to generate a stable soil moisture distribution. The Anderson–Darling test is implemented, both with and without a Bonferroni adjustment, to quantify the necessary record length. The authors evaluate how the necessary record length varies by location, measurement depth, and month. They find that between 3 and 15 years of data are required to produce stable distributions, with the majority of stations requiring only 3–6 years of data. Not surprisingly, more years of data are required to obtain stable estimates of the 5th and 95th percentiles than of the first, second, and third quartiles of the soil moisture distribution. Overall these results suggest that 6 years of continuous, daily in situ soil moisture data will be sufficient in most conditions to create stable and robust percentiles.
Abstract
The ability to use in situ soil moisture for large-scale soil moisture monitoring, model and satellite validation, and climate investigations is contingent on properly standardizing soil moisture observations. Percentiles are a useful method for homogenizing in situ soil moisture. However, very few stations have been continuously monitoring in situ soil moisture for 20 years or more. Therefore, one challenge in evaluating soil moisture is determining whether the period of record is sufficient to produce a stable distribution from which to generate percentiles. In this study daily in situ soil moisture observations, measured at three separate depths in the soil column at 15 stations in the United States and Canada, are used to determine the record length that is necessary to generate a stable soil moisture distribution. The Anderson–Darling test is implemented, both with and without a Bonferroni adjustment, to quantify the necessary record length. The authors evaluate how the necessary record length varies by location, measurement depth, and month. They find that between 3 and 15 years of data are required to produce stable distributions, with the majority of stations requiring only 3–6 years of data. Not surprisingly, more years of data are required to obtain stable estimates of the 5th and 95th percentiles than of the first, second, and third quartiles of the soil moisture distribution. Overall these results suggest that 6 years of continuous, daily in situ soil moisture data will be sufficient in most conditions to create stable and robust percentiles.
Abstract
The North American Soil Moisture Database (NASMD) was initiated in 2011 to provide support for developing climate forecasting tools, calibrating land surface models, and validating satellite-derived soil moisture algorithms. The NASMD has collected data from over 30 soil moisture observation networks providing millions of in situ soil moisture observations in all 50 states, as well as Canada and Mexico. It is recognized that the quality of measured soil moisture in NASMD is highly variable because of the diversity of climatological conditions, land cover, soil texture, and topographies of the stations, and differences in measurement devices (e.g., sensors) and installation. It is also recognized that error, inaccuracy, and imprecision in the data can have significant impacts on practical operations and scientific studies. Therefore, developing an appropriate quality control procedure is essential to ensure that the data are of the best quality. In this study, an automated quality control approach is developed using the North American Land Data Assimilation System, phase 2 (NLDAS-2), Noah soil porosity, soil temperature, and fraction of liquid and total soil moisture to flag erroneous and/or spurious measurements. Overall results show that this approach is able to flag unreasonable values when the soil is partially frozen. A validation example using NLDAS-2 multiple model soil moisture products at the 20-cm soil layer showed that the quality control procedure had a significant positive impact in Alabama, North Carolina, and west Texas. It had a greater impact in colder regions, particularly during spring and autumn. Over 433 NASMD stations have been quality controlled using the methodology proposed in this study, and the algorithm will be implemented to control data quality from the other ~1200 NASMD stations in the near future.
Abstract
The North American Soil Moisture Database (NASMD) was initiated in 2011 to provide support for developing climate forecasting tools, calibrating land surface models, and validating satellite-derived soil moisture algorithms. The NASMD has collected data from over 30 soil moisture observation networks providing millions of in situ soil moisture observations in all 50 states, as well as Canada and Mexico. It is recognized that the quality of measured soil moisture in NASMD is highly variable because of the diversity of climatological conditions, land cover, soil texture, and topographies of the stations, and differences in measurement devices (e.g., sensors) and installation. It is also recognized that error, inaccuracy, and imprecision in the data can have significant impacts on practical operations and scientific studies. Therefore, developing an appropriate quality control procedure is essential to ensure that the data are of the best quality. In this study, an automated quality control approach is developed using the North American Land Data Assimilation System, phase 2 (NLDAS-2), Noah soil porosity, soil temperature, and fraction of liquid and total soil moisture to flag erroneous and/or spurious measurements. Overall results show that this approach is able to flag unreasonable values when the soil is partially frozen. A validation example using NLDAS-2 multiple model soil moisture products at the 20-cm soil layer showed that the quality control procedure had a significant positive impact in Alabama, North Carolina, and west Texas. It had a greater impact in colder regions, particularly during spring and autumn. Over 433 NASMD stations have been quality controlled using the methodology proposed in this study, and the algorithm will be implemented to control data quality from the other ~1200 NASMD stations in the near future.
Abstract
Increased flash drought awareness in recent years has motivated the development of numerous indicators for monitoring, early warning, and assessment. The flash drought indicators can act as a complementary set of tools by which to inform flash drought response and management. However, the limitations of each indicator much be measured and communicated between research and practitioners to ensure effectiveness. The limitations of any flash drought indicator are better understood and overcome through assessment of indicator sensitivity and consistency; however, such assessment cannot assume any single indicator properly represents the flash drought “truth.” To better understand the current state of flash drought monitoring, this study presents an intercomparison of nine, widely used flash drought indicators. The indicators represent perspectives and processes that are known to drive flash drought, including evapotranspiration and evaporative demand, precipitation, and soil moisture. We find no single flash drought indicator consistently outperforms all others across the contiguous United States. We do find the evaporative demand- and evapotranspiration-driven indicators tend to lead precipitation- and soil moisture-based indicators in flash drought onset, but also tend to produce more flash drought events collectively. Overall, the regional and definition-specific variability in results supports the argument for a multi-indicator approach for flash drought monitoring, as advocated by recent studies. Furthermore, flash drought research—especially evaluation of historical and potential future changes in flash drought characteristics—should test multiple indicators, datasets, and methods for representing flash drought, and ideally employ a multi-indicator analysis framework over use of a single indicator from which to infer all flash drought information.
Significance Statement
Rapid onset or “flash” drought has been an increasing concern globally, with quickly intensifying impacts to agriculture, ecosystems, and water resources. Many tools and indicators have been developed to monitor and provide early warning for flash drought, ideally resulting in more time for effective mitigation and reduced impacts. However, there remains no widely accepted single method for defining, monitoring, and measuring flash drought, which means most indicators that are developed are compared with other individual indicators or conditions and impacts in one or two flash drought events. In this study, we measure the state of flash drought monitoring through an intercomparison of nine, widely used flash drought indicators that represent different aspects of flash drought. We find that no single flash drought indicator outperformed all others and suggest that a comprehensive flash drought monitor should leverage multiple, complementary indicators, datasets, and methods. Furthermore, we suggest flash drought research—especially that which reflects on historical or projected changes in flash drought characteristics—should seek multiple indicators, datasets, and methods for analyses, thereby reducing the potentially confounding effects of sensitivity to a single indicator.
Abstract
Increased flash drought awareness in recent years has motivated the development of numerous indicators for monitoring, early warning, and assessment. The flash drought indicators can act as a complementary set of tools by which to inform flash drought response and management. However, the limitations of each indicator much be measured and communicated between research and practitioners to ensure effectiveness. The limitations of any flash drought indicator are better understood and overcome through assessment of indicator sensitivity and consistency; however, such assessment cannot assume any single indicator properly represents the flash drought “truth.” To better understand the current state of flash drought monitoring, this study presents an intercomparison of nine, widely used flash drought indicators. The indicators represent perspectives and processes that are known to drive flash drought, including evapotranspiration and evaporative demand, precipitation, and soil moisture. We find no single flash drought indicator consistently outperforms all others across the contiguous United States. We do find the evaporative demand- and evapotranspiration-driven indicators tend to lead precipitation- and soil moisture-based indicators in flash drought onset, but also tend to produce more flash drought events collectively. Overall, the regional and definition-specific variability in results supports the argument for a multi-indicator approach for flash drought monitoring, as advocated by recent studies. Furthermore, flash drought research—especially evaluation of historical and potential future changes in flash drought characteristics—should test multiple indicators, datasets, and methods for representing flash drought, and ideally employ a multi-indicator analysis framework over use of a single indicator from which to infer all flash drought information.
Significance Statement
Rapid onset or “flash” drought has been an increasing concern globally, with quickly intensifying impacts to agriculture, ecosystems, and water resources. Many tools and indicators have been developed to monitor and provide early warning for flash drought, ideally resulting in more time for effective mitigation and reduced impacts. However, there remains no widely accepted single method for defining, monitoring, and measuring flash drought, which means most indicators that are developed are compared with other individual indicators or conditions and impacts in one or two flash drought events. In this study, we measure the state of flash drought monitoring through an intercomparison of nine, widely used flash drought indicators that represent different aspects of flash drought. We find that no single flash drought indicator outperformed all others and suggest that a comprehensive flash drought monitor should leverage multiple, complementary indicators, datasets, and methods. Furthermore, we suggest flash drought research—especially that which reflects on historical or projected changes in flash drought characteristics—should seek multiple indicators, datasets, and methods for analyses, thereby reducing the potentially confounding effects of sensitivity to a single indicator.
