Forecasting Rapid Drought Intensification Using the Climate Forecast System (CFS)

Lorenz, David J.; Otkin, Jason A.; Svoboda, M.; Hain, Christopher; Zhong, Yafang

doi:10.1029/2018jd028880

Cited by 14 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, greater focus should be placed on predicting changes in soil moisture and vapor pressure deficit given their more dominant influence on ET. Indeed, a recent study by Lorenz et al (2018) has shown that inclusion of vapor pressure deficit and soil moisture predictions from climate models increased the accuracy of subseasonal drought intensification forecasts generated using a hybrid statistical method. This is also supported by a study by Seager et al (2015) that showed that large forest fires are often associated with very large vapor pressure deficits caused by antecedent surface drying and large-scale subsidence.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because ET estimates derived from infrared and visible satellite observations can only be computed when clouds do not obscure the surface, more complete domain coverage can be obtained by compositing clear-sky ET estimates over longer time periods (Anderson et al, 2013). Satellite-derived ET datasets covering regional and global domains can be obtained from a variety of sources, such as the MODIS Global Evapotranspiration Project (Mu et al, 2011), the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (Martens et al, 2017), and the Atmosphere-Land Exchange Inverse (ALEXI) model used to compute the Evaporative Stress Index (ESI) (Anderson et al, 2007a(Anderson et al, , b, 2011.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring seasonal and regional relationships between the Evaporative Stress Index and surface weather and soil moisture anomalies across the United States

Otkin

Zhong

Lorenz

et al. 2018

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This study uses correlation analyses to explore relationships between the satellite-derived Evaporative Stress Index (ESI) – which depicts standardized anomalies in an actual to reference evapotranspiration (ET) fraction – and various land and atmospheric variables that impact ET. Correlations between the ESI and forcing variable anomalies calculated over sub-seasonal timescales were computed at weekly and monthly intervals during the growing season. Overall, the results revealed that the ESI is most strongly correlated to anomalies in soil moisture and 2 m dew point depression. Correlations between the ESI and precipitation were also large across most of the US; however, they were typically smaller than those associated with soil moisture and vapor pressure deficit. In contrast, correlations were much weaker for air temperature, wind speed, and radiation across most of the US, with the exception of the south-central US where correlations were large for all variables at some point during the growing season. Together, these results indicate that changes in soil moisture and near-surface atmospheric vapor pressure deficit are better predictors of the ESI than precipitation and air temperature anomalies are by themselves. Large regional and seasonal dependencies were also observed for each forcing variable. Each of the regional and seasonal correlation patterns were similar for ESI anomalies computed over 2-, 4-, and 8-week time periods; however, the maximum correlations increased as the ESI anomalies were computed over longer time periods and also shifted toward longer averaging periods for the forcing variables.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring seasonal and regional relationships between the Evaporative Stress Index and surface weather and soil moisture anomalies across the United States

Otkin

Zhong

Lorenz

et al. 2018

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• 15 described flash drought as a rapid onset or JoASC, Volume 2021, Issue 001 intensification drought event (Anderson et al 2011;Otkin et al 2014;Sun et al 2015;Brown et al 2016;Hobbins et al 2016Hobbins et al , 2017Cook et al 2018;Yao et al 2018;Otkin et al 2018a;Lorenz et al 2018;Gerkin et al 2018;Hoell et al 2019;Jin et al 2019;Trnka et al 2020). • Ten described flash drought as a short-term drought event (Senay et al 2008;Hunt et al 2014;Yuan et al 2015;Cammalleri et al 2016;Orbringer et al 2016;Sanchez et al 2016;Vogt et al 2018;Haile et al 2020;H.…”

Section: General Definitions or Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pendergrass et al (2020) proposed a two-category change in two weeks, while Chen et al (2019) also proposed a two-category change but over four weeks. Lorenz et al (2018), through some experimentation, considered "rapid onset" to mean any change toward drought within 2, 4, or 6 weeks. Ford et al (2015) looked for a three-category change toward drought in eight-weeks or less.…”

Section: The Us Drought Monitor In Flash Drought Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While not using the term "flash drought" this paper references other flash drought papers to define "... short-term droughts lasting a few weeks or even days Lettenmaier 2015, 2016;Ford et al 2015;Otkin et al 2015Otkin et al , 2016Otkin et al , 2018."(p. 892) Using the standardized antecedent precipitation evapotranspiration index (SAPEI) this paper defines a "short-term drought" during the growing season (April-September) as: 1) grid points with daily SAPEI <-1 2) The area with SAPEI <-1 covers at least 1.6% of the study region 3) Drought patches that overlap from one day to the next were considered one event 4) The total event lasts for 2-4 weeks…”

Section: Appendicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Untitled

2021

JoASC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of "Flash Drought" is rapidly gaining attention within both the research and drought management communities. This literature review aims to synthesize the research todate and provide a basis for future research on the topic. Specifically, our review is focused on documenting the range of definitions of "flash drought" being proposed in the research community. We found that the term first appeared in the peer-reviewed literature in 2002, and by 2020 has become an area of active research. Within that 18-year span, "flash drought" has been given 29 general descriptions, and 20 papers have provided measurable, defining criteria used to distinguish a flash drought from other drought. Of these papers, 11 distinguish flash drought as a rapid-onset drought event while eight distinguish flash drought as a short-term or short-lived, yet severe, drought event and one paper considers flash drought as both a short-lived and rapid onset event. Of the papers that define a flash drought by its rate of onset, the rate proposed ranges from 5 days to 8 weeks. Currently, there is not a universally accepted definition or criteria for "flash drought," despite recent research that has called for the research community to adopt the principle of rapid-intensification of drought conditions.

show abstract

Flash drought: A state of the science review

Christian,

Hobbins,

Hoell

et al. 2024

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the two decades, since the advent of the term “flash drought,” considerable research has been directed toward the topic. Within the scientific community, we have actively forged a new paradigm that has avoided a chaotic evolution of conventional drought but instead recognizes that flash droughts have distinct dynamics and, particularly, impacts. We have moved beyond the initial debate over the definition of flash drought to a centralized focus on the triad of rapid onset, drought development, and associated impacts. The refinement toward this general set of principles has led to significant progress in determining key variables for monitoring flash drought development, identifying notable case studies, and compiling fundamental physical characteristics of flash drought. However, critical focus areas still remain, including advancing our knowledge on the atmospheric and oceanic drivers of flash drought; developing flash drought‐specific detection indices and monitoring systems tailored to practitioners; improving subseasonal‐to‐seasonal prediction of these events; constraining uncertainty in flash drought and impact projections; and using social science to further our understanding of impacts, particularly with regard to sectors that lie outside of our traditional hydroclimatological focus, such as wildfire management and food‐security monitoring. Researchers and stakeholders working together on these critical topics will assure society is resilient to flash drought in a changing climate.This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Water Extremes

show abstract

Forecasting Rapid Drought Intensification Using the Climate Forecast System (CFS)

Cited by 14 publications

References 40 publications

Exploring seasonal and regional relationships between the Evaporative Stress Index and surface weather and soil moisture anomalies across the United States

Exploring seasonal and regional relationships between the Evaporative Stress Index and surface weather and soil moisture anomalies across the United States

Untitled

Flash drought: A state of the science review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About