Trent W. Ford, Jason A. Otkin, Steven M. Quiring, Joel Lisonbee, Molly Woloszyn, Junming Wang, Yafang Zhong
{"title":"美国突发性干旱指标间比较","authors":"Trent W. Ford, Jason A. Otkin, Steven M. Quiring, Joel Lisonbee, Molly Woloszyn, Junming Wang, Yafang Zhong","doi":"10.1175/jamc-d-23-0081.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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 inter-comparison 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 frameworks over use of a single indicator from which to infer all flash drought information.","PeriodicalId":15027,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology","volume":"256 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Flash Drought Indicator Inter-Comparison in the United States\",\"authors\":\"Trent W. Ford, Jason A. Otkin, Steven M. Quiring, Joel Lisonbee, Molly Woloszyn, Junming Wang, Yafang Zhong\",\"doi\":\"10.1175/jamc-d-23-0081.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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 inter-comparison 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 frameworks over use of a single indicator from which to infer all flash drought information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15027,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology\",\"volume\":\"256 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-23-0081.1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-23-0081.1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Flash Drought Indicator Inter-Comparison in the United States
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 inter-comparison 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 frameworks over use of a single indicator from which to infer all flash drought information.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology (JAMC) (ISSN: 1558-8424; eISSN: 1558-8432) publishes applied research on meteorology and climatology. Examples of meteorological research include topics such as weather modification, satellite meteorology, radar meteorology, boundary layer processes, physical meteorology, air pollution meteorology (including dispersion and chemical processes), agricultural and forest meteorology, mountain meteorology, and applied meteorological numerical models. Examples of climatological research include the use of climate information in impact assessments, dynamical and statistical downscaling, seasonal climate forecast applications and verification, climate risk and vulnerability, development of climate monitoring tools, and urban and local climates.