Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: David M. Goodrich x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Eleonora M. C. Demaria, David C. Goodrich, and Kenneth E. Kunkel

Abstract

The detection and attribution of changes in precipitation characteristics relies on dense networks of rain gauges. In the United States, the COOP network is widely used for such studies even though there are reported inconsistencies due to changes in instruments and location, inadequate maintenance, dissimilar observation time, and the fact that measurements are made by a group of dedicated volunteers. Alternately, the Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network has been consistently and professionally measuring precipitation since the early 1930s. The purpose of this study is to compare changes in extreme daily precipitation characteristics during the warm season using paired rain gauges from the LTAR and COOP networks. The comparison, done at 12 LTAR sites located across the United States, shows underestimation and overestimation of daily precipitation totals at the COOP sites compared to the reference LTAR observations. However, the magnitude and direction of the differences are not linked to the underlying precipitation climatology of the sites. Precipitation indices that focus on extreme precipitation characteristics match closely between the two networks at most of the sites. Our results show consistency between the COOP and LTAR networks with precipitation extremes. It also indicates that despite the discrepancies at the daily time steps, the extreme precipitation observed by COOP rain gauges can be reliably used to characterize changes in the hydrologic cycle due to natural and human causes.

Full access
Timothy M. Lahmers, Hoshin Gupta, Christopher L. Castro, David J. Gochis, David Yates, Aubrey Dugger, David Goodrich, and Pieter Hazenberg

Abstract

In August 2016, the National Weather Service Office of Water Prediction (NWS/OWP) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented the operational National Water Model (NWM) to simulate and forecast streamflow, soil moisture, and other model states throughout the contiguous United States. Based on the architecture of the WRF-Hydro hydrologic model, the NWM does not currently resolve channel infiltration, an important component of the water balance of the semiarid western United States. Here, we demonstrate the benefit of implementing a conceptual channel infiltration function (from the KINEROS2 semidistributed hydrologic model) into the WRF-Hydro model architecture, configured as NWM v1.1. After calibration, the updated WRF-Hydro model exhibits reduced streamflow errors for the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed (WGEW) and the Babocomari River in southeast Arizona. Model calibration was performed using NLDAS-2 atmospheric forcing, available from the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), paired with precipitation forcing from NLDAS-2, NCEP Stage IV, or local gauge precipitation. Including channel infiltration within WRF-Hydro results in a physically realistic hydrologic response in the WGEW, when the model is forced with high-resolution, gauge-based precipitation in lieu of a national product. The value of accounting for channel loss is also demonstrated in the Babocomari basin, where the drainage area is greater and the cumulative effect of channel infiltration is more important. Accounting for channel infiltration loss thus improves the streamflow behavior simulated by the calibrated model and reduces evapotranspiration bias when gauge precipitation is used as forcing. However, calibration also results in increased high soil moisture bias, which is likely due to underlying limitations of the NWM structure and calibration methodology.

Full access
David M. Goodrich, William C. Boicourt, Peter Hamilton, and Donald W. Pritchard

Abstract

Multiyear continuous observations of velocity and salinity in the Chesapeake Bay indicate that wind-induced destratification occurs frequently from early fall through midspring over large areas of the estuary. Storm-driven breakdown of summer stratification was observed to occur near the autumnal equinox in two separate years. Surface cooling plays an important, though secondary, role in the fall destratification by reducing the vertical temperature gradient in the days prior to the mixing event. Large internal velocity shear precedes mixing events, suggesting a mechanism involving the generation of dynamic instability across the pycnocline. Destratification is shown to fundamentally alter the response of the velocity field to subsequent wind forcing; in stratified conditions, response is depth-dependent, while after mixing a depth-independent response is observed.

Full access
Sarah J. Doherty, Stephan Bojinski, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Kevin Noone, David Goodrich, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, John A. Church, Kathy A. Hibbard, Thomas R. Karl, Lucka Kajfez-Bogataj, Amanda H. Lynch, David E. Parker, I. Colin Prentice, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Roger W. Saunders, Mark Stafford Smith, Konrad Steffen, Thomas F. Stocker, Peter W. Thorne, Kevin E. Trenberth, Michel M. Verstraete, and Francis W. Zwiers

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming is “unequivocal” and that most of the observed increase since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, with discernible human influences on ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, wind patterns, and other physical and biological indicators, impacting both socioeconomic and ecological systems. It is now clear that we are committed to some level of global climate change, and it is imperative that this be considered when planning future climate research and observational strategies. The Global Climate Observing System program (GCOS), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) therefore initiated a process to summarize the lessons learned through AR4 Working Groups I and II and to identify a set of high-priority modeling and observational needs. Two classes of recommendations emerged. First is the need to improve climate models, observational and climate monitoring systems, and our understanding of key processes. Second, the framework for climate research and observations must be extended to document impacts and to guide adaptation and mitigation efforts. Research and observational strategies specifically aimed at improving our ability to predict and understand impacts, adaptive capacity, and societal and ecosystem vulnerabilities will serve both purposes and are the subject of the specific recommendations made in this paper.

Full access