Atmospheric Rivers: key to extratropical water vapor transport

Just about any time we get a flooding event these days, some wailing uninformed opportunist jumps on the “global warming did it” bandwagon in an attempt to explain it. Those of us who have been in the weather forecasting business for years often look for more mundane and well known phenomena as the cause.

One of those is the atmospheric river, or as we often call it here in California, the “Pineapple Express”. NOAA recently created an information page and PR on the issue, and I’m providing it here for those who would like to learn more about it.

This satellite view of atmospheric rivers is key to understanding extreme precipitation events along the West Coast. (Credit: NOAA)

Atmospheric rivers are relatively long, narrow regions in the atmosphere – like rivers in the sky – that transport most of the water vapor outside of the tropics. These columns of vapor move with the weather, carrying an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River. When the atmospheric rivers make landfall, they often release this water vapor in the form of rain or snow.

Although atmospheric rivers come in many shapes and sizes, those that contain the largest amounts of water vapor and the strongest winds can create extreme rainfall and floods, often by stalling over watersheds vulnerable to flooding. These events can disrupt travel, induce mudslides and cause catastrophic damage to life and property. A well-known example is the “Pineapple Express,” a strong atmospheric river that is capable of bringing moisture from the tropics near Hawaii over to the U.S. West Coast.

Not all atmospheric rivers cause damage; most are weak systems that often provide beneficial rain or snow that is crucial to the water supply. Atmospheric rivers are a key feature in the global water cycle and are closely tied to both water supply and flood risks —particularly in the western United States.

Flooding and debris-flows.
Flooding and debris flows can occur quickly and trap or kill unsuspecting victims in their path. (Credit: NOAA)

While atmospheric rivers are responsible for great quantities of rain that can produce flooding, they also contribute to beneficial increases in snowpack. A series of atmospheric rivers fueled the strong winter storms that battered the U.S. West Coast from western Washington to southern California from Dec. 10–22, 2010, producing 11 to 25 inches of rain in certain areas. These rivers also contributed to the snowpack in the Sierras, which received 75 percent of its annual snow by Dec. 22, the first full day of winter.

NOAA research (e.g., NOAA Hydrometeorological Testbed and CalWater) uses satellite, radar, aircraft and other observations, as well as major numerical weather model improvements, to better understand atmospheric rivers and their importance to both weather and climate.

Scientific research yields important data that helps NOAA National Weather Service forecasters issue warnings for potential heavy rain and flooding in areas prone to the impacts of atmospheric rivers as many as five to seven days in advance.

Quick Overview

  • Atmospheric Rivers (AR) are relatively narrow regions in the atmosphere that are responsible for most of the horizontal transport of water vapor outside of the tropics.
  • ARs move with the weather and are present somewhere on the earth at any given time.
  • In the strongest cases ARs can create major flooding when they make land-fall.
  • On average ARs are 400-600 km wide.
  • For comparison, a strong AR transports an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to 10-20 times the average flow of liquid water at the mouth of the Mississippi River.
  • While ARs come in many shapes and sizes, those that contain the largest amounts of water vapor, the strongest winds, and stall over watersheds vulnerable to flooding, can create extreme rainfall and floods. These events can disrupt travel, induce mud slides, and cause catastrophic damage to life and property.
  • A well-known example of a type of strong AR that can hit the U.S. west coast is the “Pineapple Express,” due to their apparent ability to bring moisture from the tropics near Hawaii to the U.S. west coast.
  • Not all ARs cause damage – most are weak, and simply provide beneficial rain or snow that is crucial to water supply.
  • In short, ARs are a primary feature in the entire global water cycle, and are tied closely to both water supply and flood risks, particularly in the Western U.S.
  • The improved understanding of ARs and their importance has emerged from roughly a decade of scientific studies that have made use of new satellite, radar, aircraft and other observations and major numerical weather model improvements.

What are they, in more scientific terms?

ARs are the water-vapor rich part of the broader warm conveyor belt (e.g., Browning, 1990; Carlson, 1991), that is found in extratropical cyclones (“storms”). They result from the action of winds associated with the storm drawing together moisture into a narrow region just ahead of the cold front where low-level winds can sometimes exceed hurricane strength. The term AR was coined in a seminal scientific paper published in 1998 by researchers Zhu and Newell at MIT (Zhu and Newell 1998). Because they found that most of the water vapor was transported in relatively narrow regions of the atmosphere (90% of the transport occurred typically in 4-5 long, narrow regions roughly 400 km wide), the term atmospheric river was used. A number of formal scientific papers have since been published building on this concept (see the publication list), and forecasters and climate researchers are beginning to apply the ideas and methods to their fields. The satellite images at right show strong ARs as seen by satellite. The advent of these specialized satellite observations have revealed ARs over the oceans and have revolutionized understanding of the global importance of ARs (more traditional satellite data available in the past could not clearly detect AR conditions). The interpretation of these satellite images, which represent only water vapor, not winds, was confirmed using NOAA research aircraft data over the Eastern Pacific Ocean and wind profilers along the coast (Ralph et al. 2004). The event shown in the image was documented by Ralph et al. (2006), which concluded this AR produced roughly 10 inches of rain in 2 days and caused a flood on the Russian River of northern California. It was also shown that all floods on the Russian River in the 7-year period of study were associated with AR conditions. As of late 2010 there have been a number of papers published on major west coast storms where the presence and importance of AR conditions have been documented. These are provided in an informal list of the “Top Ten ARs” of the last several years on the U.S. West Coast. It is now recognized that the well-known “Pineapple express,” storms (a term that has been used on the U.S. West Coast for many years) correspond to a subset of ARs, i.e., those that have a connection to the tropics near Hawaii. In some of the most extreme ARs, the water vapor transport is enhanced by the fact that they entrain (draw in) water vapor directly from the tropics (e.g., Bao et al 2006, Ralph et al. 2011).

Can we forecast atmospheric rivers?

  • National Weather Service forecasters located along the west coast are now familiar with the concept of atmospheric rivers and can identify these phenomena in current numerical forecast models. This provides them the capability to give advanced warning of potential heavy rain sometime 5 to 7 days in advance. They have also learned to monitor polar orbiter microwave satellite imagery that provides advanced warning of the presence and movement of these phenomena in the Pacific. During the last two winters, with the development of atmospheric river observatories, forecasters have been able to monitor the strength and location of these rivers as they make landfall and thus improve short-term rainfall forecasts for flash flooding. There are still challenges to predicting rainfall totals in these events as models still struggle with the details of the duration and timing of AR’s as they make landfall.

Why are ARs capable of producing extreme rainfall on the U.S. West Coast?

AR conditions are conducive to creating heavy orographic precipitation (Ralph et al., 2005; MWR) because:

  • they are rich in water vapor,
  • they are associated with strong winds that force the water vapor up mountain sides,
  • the atmospheric conditions do not inhibit upward motions (because the atmospheric static stability is nearly neutral up to about 3 km MSL, on average)
  • once the air moves upward, the water vapor condenses and can form precipitation

What is the role of atmospheric rivers in creating floods?

  • Research has shown there were 42 ARs that impacted CA during the winters from 1997 to 2006, and the resulting seven floods that occurred on the Russian River watershed northwest of San Francisco during this period were all associated with AR conditions.
  • A major flood in California, known as the “New years Day Flood” in 1997 cause over $1 Billion in damages and had a well-defined AR.
  • Less formally, ARs are known to result in an order of magnitude larger post-storm stream flow “bumps” (increases) than other California storms, in the Merced and American Rivers.
  • The Pacific Northwest also regularly experiences this type of storm. Case in point is the landfalling AR of early November 2006 that produced heavy rainfall and devastating flooding and debris flows with region-wide damage exceeding $50 million.
  • The “Top-Ten AR” list highlights additional high-impact AR events.

How are science and applications of ARs being addressed?

  • Research experiments (CalJet and PacJet) performed by NOAA in the 1998, 2001, and 2002 were conducted to better understand landfalling Pacific winter storms.
  • CalJet/PacJet led to the development of the NOAA Hydrometeorology Testbed (HMT; hmt.noaa.gov). HMT’s aim is to accelerate the development and prototyping of advanced hydrometeorological observations, models, and physical process understanding, and to foster infusion of these advances into forecasting operations of the NWS, and to support the broader user community’s needs for 21st Century precipitation information.
  • Within HMT, scientists have developed and prototyped an atmospheric river observatory (ARO) designed to further our understanding of the impact of ARs on enhancing precipitation in the coastal mountains and the high Sierra of California.
  • Studies of the potential impacts of climate change on AR characteristics is the focus on an ongoing project – CalWater that is partnering with HMT, the California Energy Commission, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USGS and others, to explore the potential implications for flood risk and water supply.
  • Under the USGS-led Multihazards project, ARs have become the focus of an emergency preparedness scenario for California that is intended to help the region prepare for a potentially catastrophic series of ARs. The scenario is named “ARkStorm” and has developed an informational video for use with the public (http://urbanearth.gps.caltech.edu/winter-storm/).

What are the benefits of studying atmospheric rivers?

  • The community of flood control, water supply and reservoir operators of the West Coast states see ARs as a key phenomenon to understand, monitor and predict as they work to mitigate the risks of major flood events, while maintaining adequate water supply. The frequency and strength of AR events in a given region over the course of a typical west-coast wet season greatly influences the fate of droughts, floods, and many key human endeavors and ecosystems. Better coupling of climate forecasts with seasonal weather forecasts of ARs can improve water management decisions. Long-term monitoring using satellite measurements, offshore aircraft reconnaissance, and land-based atmospheric river observatories, combined with better numerical modeling, scientific progress, and the development of AR-based smart decision aids for resource managers, will enable society to be more resilient to storms and droughts, while protecting our critical ecosystems.

examples of ARs

Examples of AR events that produced extreme precipitation on the US West Coast, and exhibited spatial continuity with the tropical water vapor reservoir as seen in SSM/I satellite observations of IWV. (From Ralph et al. 2011, Mon. Weather Review) 

The color scale used in these images represents the total amount of water vapor between the ocean surface and space. The data are from passive microwave sensors onboard polar orbiting satellites, which measure vertically integrated water vapor (IWV), i.e., the total amount of vapor in the atmosphere from the surface to space (g/cm2).
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
54 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pwl
February 12, 2011 4:04 am

Minor typo, first paragraph, second sentence begins with: “Thise of us”, most likely you meant “Those of us”.
REPLY: Thanks, fixed. I blame 4AM insomnia – Anthony

John Marshall
February 12, 2011 4:12 am

Very interesting and an important area for further research.
Thanks Anthony.

February 12, 2011 4:59 am

It appears someone at NOAA is “off the reservation”. I read nothing of (alleged) AGW.

Bill Illis
February 12, 2011 5:02 am

I’ve always thought this model animation of clouds and winds over one full year was very instructive. I think you can see the atmospheric rivers but they don’t last very long or consistently appear in one place. This is a model animation partly based on actual observations (and the clouds in the equatorial region seem to be over-done) but it is quite interesting.
https://www.ucar.edu/publications/nsf_review/animations/ccm3.512×256.mpg

alan
February 12, 2011 5:12 am

Earlier in the article:
“These columns of vapor move with the weather, carrying an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to the average flow of water at the mouth of the Mississippi River.”
Later in the summary:
“For comparison, a strong AR transports an amount of water vapor roughly equivalent to 10-20 times the average flow of liquid water at the mouth of the Mississippi River.”
Which is it, “roughly equivalent” or “10 to 20 times”?

caroza
February 12, 2011 5:21 am

And your point is?

Although atmospheric rivers come in many shapes and sizes, those that contain the largest amounts of water vapor and the strongest winds can create extreme rainfall and floods, often by stalling over watersheds vulnerable to flooding.

More (AGW-caused) water vapour and heat energy in the system means the small ones get bigger, and the big ones get gigantic, which means a higher frequency of weather events which were previously extreme, which is exactly what’s happening. But your opening canard implies that global warming requires there to be some completely separate mechanism, and that’s as far as most people will read.
This is not science.

David Larsen
February 12, 2011 6:14 am

If you live in the 10 year flood plain you get flooded every 10 years. 20/20 and so forth. We now have the media sensationalizing every natural occuring event as if it is an unheard of event. A lack of good planning on your part does not constitute an unnatural event or a once in an ion happening. The earth’s climate and surface are interacting and have for 6.5 billion or so years.

Ian W
February 12, 2011 6:23 am

One thing not mentioned was the heat transport that is occurring. A 400km wide band carrying “10-20 times the average flow of liquid water at the mouth of the Mississippi River” from the sub-tropics to the temperate and then dumping rain by releasing large amounts of latent heat into the atmosphere as the water vapor turns to liquid. It takes a large amount of energy to vaporise 20 times the Mississippi flow. Much of this latent heat release then escapes to space and is not governed by the temperature based Boltzmann radiation formulae.
Perhaps this is where the ‘missing heat’ is hiding or rather escaping?

February 12, 2011 6:38 am

Anthony, you post so many items of interest to laymen such as myself that I feel obligated to begin budgeting a regular contribution to help pay for what has up to now been taken for free. Thank you for your continueing help in understanding our world.

February 12, 2011 6:44 am

Referring to the final illustration of the three atmospheric rivers, the following are the NINO3.4 SST anomalies (in parentheses) for the months of January 2005 (+0.58 deg C), November 2006 (+1.21 deg C), and October 2009 (1.03 deg C). In other words, all of those examples were during the months of low to medium strength El Ninos. Do these atmospheric rivers only occur during El Nino events?

Jeff K
February 12, 2011 6:46 am

Wow, great article, chock full of information. Too bad science and historical data often take a back seat to the alarmist environmental drum beat of the day-witness Northeast Australia.

MartinGAtkins
February 12, 2011 7:05 am

You have made a long submission but at first blush I don’t agree with the term “atmospheric rivers”. “Boundary lines” yes because it fits with fluid (in flow form) dynamics.
Any moving fluid through another medium will form eddies at the outer edge of the flow. Interestingly this was noticed by Leonardo
Da Vinci.
I understand that you are looking at this as a Meteorologist so I won’t elaborate any further on fluid dynamics as it is not my area (what is?).
I’ll book mark this post and enjoy your observations, as we struggle to understand how the laws of physics complicate our world.

February 12, 2011 7:21 am

And to answer my own question (Do these atmospheric rivers only occur during El Nino events?) the answer is no. They simply change location during El Nino and La Nina events, according to Nusbaumer & Noone (2010). They write in the abstract, “It was found that there is shift in the position and strength of ARs with ENSO, with a poleward (equatorward) shift in AR locations during La Nina (El Nino), and a large East/West variation in the Western Pacific/Eastern Indian Ocean.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFM.A53B0211N
And that makes sense because the convection/cloud cover/precipitation accompany the warm water during ENSO events.

Harold Pierce Jr
February 12, 2011 7:24 am

How could one carry out climate model calculations when there is a nonuniform and constantly changing distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere over such a large area of the earth?

February 12, 2011 7:26 am

caroza says: “More (AGW-caused) water vapour and heat energy in the system means the small ones get bigger, and the big ones get gigantic, which means a higher frequency of weather events which were previously extreme, which is exactly what’s happening.”
All assumptions on your part.

mddwave
February 12, 2011 7:29 am

I have sometimes seen storms in Northern Utah that instead of typical moving front weather pattern, it looks like “somebody left the pump on”. On reading this article on atmospheric rivers, it made wonder if I am seeing a smaller scale atmospheric “creek or stream” events. Utah doesn’t have rivers like the Mississippi.

Editor
February 12, 2011 7:45 am

I’ve got a few graphics and animations that might help in visualizing this:
Water Vapor
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/pwat_max_swath.png
Here is a static version of 250 hPa/mb Wind Speeds and Vectors – Approximately 10,000 meters (32,800 feet);
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/gfs_w250_000.png
and here’s an animated Jet Stream forecast – 250 hPa/mb Wind Speeds and Pressure – Approximately 10,000 meters (32,800 feet);
http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250
This is 325K Isentropic Surface Potential Vorticity (PV) – Vorticity Assuming No Increase or Decrease in Entropy on a 325 Kelvin Surface – Click on the link below and then check the “Click to animate” box at the top of the new page;
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/pv325.html
and finally THETA-E (Equivalent Potential Temperature) at 850 hPa/mb Approximately 1,500 meters (5,000 feet) Click on the link below and then check the “Click to animate” box at the top of the new page.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/thetae800.html
Several of these graphics/animations and a array of others can be found on WUWT’s Atmosphere Reference Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmosphere/
If you have any suggestions of other current atmospheric graphs, graphics or animations you’d like to see on WUWT’s Atmosphere Reference Page, please let us know.

Dr T G Watkins
February 12, 2011 7:49 am

Thanks Anthony and the ever informative Bob Tisdale.

Oliver
February 12, 2011 8:06 am

Nice to read that this research has been incorporated into routine forecasting – my dear old dad (Reg Newell) would have been pleased.
(he was never a fan of the AGW science-is-settled arguments, to put it mildly)

Oliver Ramsay
February 12, 2011 8:24 am

caroza says:
February 12, 2011 at 5:21 am
And your point is?
Although atmospheric rivers come in many shapes and sizes, those that contain the largest amounts of water vapor and the strongest winds can create extreme rainfall and floods, often by stalling over watersheds vulnerable to flooding.
More (AGW-caused) water vapour and heat energy in the system means the small ones get bigger, and the big ones get gigantic, which means a higher frequency of weather events which were previously extreme, which is exactly what’s happening. But your opening canard implies that global warming requires there to be some completely separate mechanism, and that’s as far as most people will read.
This is not science.
———————————————-
You’ve gone and forgotten your own story line.
It’s CO2! Remember? It makes the air less cold at night. More at the higher latitudes than in the tropics.
This is why you invented Climate Change; because Global Warming didn’t do the trick.
Or, is it that suddenly a build-up of CO2 near Hawaii heats the ocean and sends an extra big surge of water vapour to us in BC?
Relative humidity has fallen significantly in all of Canada in recent years. There has been putative warming in the west and cooling in the east during this period.
Perhaps, you have the CO2-based “scientific” explanation.

James Allison
February 12, 2011 8:25 am

caroza says:
February 12, 2011 at 5:21 am
Well I’ll assert that any increase in water vapour is removed out of the atmoshere by an equivalent increase in tropical thunderstorm activity.

TomRude
February 12, 2011 8:48 am

Cute post… but really this is a consequence of lower tropospheric circulation:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

Theo Goodwin
February 12, 2011 8:59 am

“CalJet/PacJet led to the development of the NOAA Hydrometeorology Testbed (HMT; hmt.noaa.gov). HMT’s aim is to accelerate the development and prototyping of advanced hydrometeorological observations, models, and physical process understanding, and to foster infusion of these advances into forecasting operations of the NWS, and to support the broader user community’s needs for 21st Century precipitation information.”
This is soooooooo promising. It is the beginning of real science. It is being done by real scientists. To the good side, they say “forecasting” rather than “predicting.” Maybe also to the good side, they say “physical process understanding” rather than “physical hypotheses.” All this is good because at this time they have no reasonably confirmed physical hypotheses and cannot predict anything. (Prediction would bring up the question of falsification, but they have nothing to falsify just yet.)
To the bad side, they mention “models.” Of course, they work for the US government so they have no choice, I guess. If Holdren, Hansen, or Schmidt get wind of what they are doing they might be reassigned anyway.
The concept of “rivers” in the atmosphere really blows away the existing “science” of manmade CO2 global warming. It does so because it shows that there really are a whole host of atmospheric phenomena that we are only beginning to study scientifically and that these phenomena must be understood before any reasonable scientific claims can be made about climate. Once these phenomena are described by physical hypotheses, scientists can ask about the effects, if any, of increasing CO2 on them. Of course, we already know about a lot of these phenomena such as El Nino, La Nina, PDO, and many related phenomena. The scientific study of all these phenomena is in its infancy because scientists have yet to produce reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict the occurrence and behavior of a La Nina, to pick an example at random.

Pamela Gray
February 12, 2011 9:00 am

There actually has been an increased report of climate disasters. If one were to review the typical newscast from long ago, climate disasters were hardly ever mentioned. Now they are daily fare. I don’t blame AGW’ers for bringing that to our attention, because it is true. Reports of such things have dramatically increased. However, I do indeed blame such reminders (eg: caroza says: February 12, 2011 at 5:21 am) on very shallow understandings of the difference between “reports” and scientifically measured incidences that are falling outside the normal weather pattern variation record.

P. van der Meer
February 12, 2011 9:14 am

Seeing this blog got me jumping up and down with excitement. It is yet another perfect confirmation of Marcel Leroux’s theory of Mobile Polar Highs. But as yet, most are unwilling to take on his new theory. After all, that would mean a paradigm shift in meteorology/climate studies. And as this is a field of science too much in the public eye, I don’t expect to see this paradigm shift in my lifetime. His theory is clearly at odds with the AGW climate models, which we know to be faulty anyway. Anyone interested in reading more about this theory should read “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate” by Marcel Leroux, Praxis Publishing.

1 2 3