A mobile atmospheric river observatory
Image: Courtesy of NOAA
SAN FRANCISCO—The heavy rainstorms that flooded parts of northern California this past week were caused by an "atmospheric river"—a long, narrow conveyor belt of rainstorms that stream in from the Pacific Ocean. Meteorologists were able to predict the storms five days in advance, thanks to a new network of weather sensors recently installed in the state. Although the network is only partially complete, when it is finished in 2014 it should allow forecasters to predict upcoming storms and floods with much greater precision, and could provide a model warning system for flooding on continental west coasts worldwide.
An atmospheric river flows about a 1.5 kilometers above the ocean surface and can extend thousands of miles out to sea, carrying as much water as 15 Mississippi Rivers. It strikes a coast as a series of storms that arrive for days or weeks on end. Each storm can dump centimeters of rain or meters of snow. Meteorologists have had some difficulty predicting the amounts of precipitation, and therefore possible flooding. Satellite radars can track airborne water vapor well over the ocean but not so well over land, according to Martin Ralph, a research meteorologist with the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., speaking at the annual American Geophysical Union conference here. Satellites also do not give a good assessment of winds within the corridor of water vapor, which affects how quickly they move rain inland.
Furthermore, the amount of flooding is strongly influenced by how wet or dry a region's soil is before and during the storms, which can only be accurately measured by sensors embedded in the ground. Knowing how much of the precipitation will fall as rain or snow is also important, because rain causes more immediate flooding whereas snow may cause delayed flooding.
The new warning system will provide all that information and more. Snow radars are being deployed in 10 major watersheds. Soil moisture sensors are being installed at 43 sites across California, which will be key to anticipating whether an incoming storm will produce heavy runoff, according to Michael Dettinger, a research hydrologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., who was also speaking at the meeting. (Dettinger is co-author of a detailed article about atmospheric rivers in the January issue of Scientific American). Some of the snow radars and about three quarters of the soil sensors are already in place.
The centerpiece of the system will be four unique "atmospheric river observatories" located about 400 kilometers from one another. The units, about the size of a dump truck, look upward and show precise wind speed and direction at several altitudes, the elevation at which precipitation is rain or snow, and the total amount of water vapor above the site. They also indicate standard weather data such as temperature, humidity and atmospheric pressure. The first observatory is being installed right now in Bodega Bay. The others will be set up in Eureka, Point Sur and Goleta.
The partially completed system already proved its worth two weeks ago. When satellite imagery showed moisture accumulating over the central Pacific researchers drove a mobile observatory into northern California and began compiling data from it with the other sensors that were already operating. Forecasters were able to predict five days in advance that an atmospheric river would begin pummeling the state. True to the forecast, storms started hitting the coast on November 28 and lasted five days, dumping up to 38 centimeters of rain, causing flooding and mud slides. Forecasters used the information to warn residents which rivers might flood when, and the state's Department of Water Resources used it to help decide whether to try to mitigate flooding by opening or closing dams and other structures along California's rivers.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentWe knew about this storm for over a week before it got here so I don't know if this sensor system is even needed. BTW we used to call this the pineapple express, I guess renaming it justifies the cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason you had 5 days of warning was indeed because part of the system was in place and being used. Pineapple expresses are a specific case of atmospheric rivers, "small ones," that originate from the Hawaii region of the Pacific, hence pineapple.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter information with resultant better prediction & understanding is to be applauded. Giving an old phenomenon a new name & alarmist attempts to link it to climate change & insinuating that it is something new is dishonest but unfortunately typical in some quqrters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible to to somehow divert the flood water to the Ogallala aquifer or some other storage area?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve926
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe used to build dams for that purpose but now we are tearing them down when we should be building more dams. We will be the cause of our own downfall when the earth warms.
mfischetti
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur weather radar has been informing us of these patterns for years.BTW these weather patterns come about every few years and this one was actually not that big compared to the ones we get every ten years.
This will criticize the content of this article, so it might not be printed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo "atmospheric rivers" supposedly have been around a long time, only about a mile high, carrying immense amounts of water and with recurring effects that supposedly have been documented for a very long time. But they are only now being mentioned in "science". As incongruous a suggestion as that the event named Sandy was really a hurricane.
Hurricanes have hit the Northeast numerous times in the past, but never with that kind of result. Too, it was only a category 1, far too weak for the damage displayed. Also, and very telling, it was touted as a superstorm by the media even before it hit! And climate change proponents never once, before Sandy arrived, emphasized that it was an example of the aggressive weather climate change is supposed to bring!
And the evidence of a fraud, with the "damage" being more man made than weather realted, is massive. Isolated trees in groups of trees being felled, while others around them stand, as if some lazy crew went to work and only pulled down the few. Electric wires laying on the street for days unattended, which is illegal if they had power in them, and highway lights being dark even though they aren't fed by overhead lines. Evidence that the power outages were caused only by electric companies shutting the electricity. Flooding never before seen even in more massive nor'easters, but fully similar to recent bouts of flooding that are the result only of affluent areas with reservoirs opening the floodgates and destroying low lying land so they could steal it for a song. That is, the flooding in areas that were seen by the "rank and file", "flooding" where no one outside of the New World Order power structure was permitted is likely a lie. And the fraud of the gas shortage, relying on the lie that money hungry gas companies wouldn't have generators to pump gas at stations hit by power outages, and furthered by the spectacle of only one gas station in each area being permitted to sell gas, even after power was restored and deliveries of gas resumed.
It's really not difficult to stage a phony "disaster"
Then herd the people into FEMA concentration camps and institute the police state, or, more aptly, the prison state.
Just so long as enough gullible people believe the hogwash like massive "atmospheric rivers".
Consider something even more significant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn Monday, December 3, the New Jersey newspaper, The Star-Ledger, ran an article, "Storm-spotting satellites expected to fail in 2016, leaving yearlong data gap", they described an expected disappearance of official satellite based meteorological information available to the "rank and file". Presumably, it will be restored when a new fleet of satellites is launched in 2017. Certainly, a major item, at least for those of the "rank and file" who haven't hypnotized themselves into thinking that whatever "scientists" say is unquestionably true and reliable. How like episodes of "Mission: Impossible" where they blank out surveillance cameras for a bit, then restore them after they have inserted a false image in front of the lens or after they've done their dirty work. It's not mentioned on Scientific American, it's not mentioned on PhysOrg. It seems limited to the relatively modest venue of The Star-Ledger. That, too, seems suspicious. Something does seem in the works.
@drafter, you could have read the article before claiming the prediction of the more recent storm proves this system isn't needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis system is what predicted that storm 5 days in advance.
Not another climate change denier! You will drown in DeNial, friend, even if it's not an atmospheric river--just a plain old-fashioned river called "willful ignorance."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe penrod strikes again!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am more anticipatory of julian than I am of Carlyle, scienceproofreader (a new addition promoting outdated propaganda, as do all), Sisko, Prid, Shoshin, and, of course, GKarst, who (for why I do not know) likes to leave a "signature" of "GK" just to document his ignorance.
At least penrod keeps it interesting. The other trolls have become monotonous.
For one who claims the 'hockey stick' is valid & that the 'email scandal' was much ado about nothing, the claim that those who disagree with his interpretation of information are inferior beings is laughable. He would also agree with the head of the IPCC claiming that human behaviour was the cause of earthquakes & tsunamis no doubt. His statment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change.
Laughable?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
You bore me, and others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you incapable of reading them yourself? If you are happy to have others devise implausible explanations that fly in the face of the actual content of the emails, you are displaying blind faith in your preachers. All the emails are available online. Read them yourself. Even just reading those quoted on your site would be a start. Anyone who has actually taken the trouble to read the contentious emails can not dismiss them as being irrelevant unless they are wearing blinkers. As for the hockey stick, even most proponents of AGW are embarrassed by it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this