scholarly journals A Multi‐inventory Ensemble Analysis of the Effects of Atmospheric Rivers on Precipitation and Streamflow in the Namgang‐dam Basin in Korea

Author(s):  
Young Ryu ◽  
Hyejin Moon ◽  
Jinwon Kim ◽  
Tae‐Jun Kim ◽  
Kyung‐On Boo ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina S. Oakley ◽  
◽  
Jeremy T. Lancaster ◽  
Jason M. Cordeira

2021 ◽  
Vol 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junwen Tao ◽  
Yue Ma ◽  
Xuefei Zhuang ◽  
Qiang Lv ◽  
Yaqiong Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract This study proposed a novel ensemble analysis strategy to improve hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) prediction by integrating environmental data. The approach began by establishing a vector autoregressive model (VAR). Then, a dynamic Bayesian networks (DBN) model was used for variable selection of environmental factors. Finally, a VAR model with constraints (CVAR) was established for predicting the incidence of HFMD in Chengdu city from 2011 to 2017. DBN showed that temperature was related to HFMD at lags 1 and 2. Humidity, wind speed, sunshine, PM10, SO2 and NO2 were related to HFMD at lag 2. Compared with the autoregressive integrated moving average model with external variables (ARIMAX), the CVAR model had a higher coefficient of determination (R2, average difference: + 2.11%; t = 6.2051, P = 0.0003 < 0.05), a lower root mean-squared error (−24.88%; t = −5.2898, P = 0.0007 < 0.05) and a lower mean absolute percentage error (−16.69%; t = −4.3647, P = 0.0024 < 0.05). The accuracy of predicting the time-series shape was 88.16% for the CVAR model and 86.41% for ARIMAX. The CVAR model performed better in terms of variable selection, model interpretation and prediction. Therefore, it could be used by health authorities to identify potential HFMD outbreaks and develop disease control measures.


2021 ◽  
Vol 567 ◽  
pp. 110293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine A. Shields ◽  
Jeffrey T. Kiehl ◽  
William Rush ◽  
Mathew Rothstein ◽  
Mark A. Snyder

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matías Carvajal ◽  
Patricio Winckler ◽  
René Garreaud ◽  
Felipe Igualt ◽  
Manuel Contreras-López ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Héctor Alejandro Inda Díaz ◽  
Travis Allen O'Brien ◽  
Yang Zhou ◽  
William D. Collins

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (17) ◽  
pp. 6199-6206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina V. Gorodetskaya ◽  
Maria Tsukernik ◽  
Kim Claes ◽  
Martin F. Ralph ◽  
William D. Neff ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Terence J. Pagano ◽  
Duane E. Waliser ◽  
Bin Guan ◽  
Hengchun Ye ◽  
F. Martin Ralph ◽  
...  

AbstractAtmospheric rivers (ARs) are long and narrow regions of strong horizontal water vapor transport. Upon landfall, ARs are typically associated with heavy precipitation and strong surface winds. A quantitative understanding of the atmospheric conditions that favor extreme surface winds during ARs has implications for anticipating and managing various impacts associated with these potentially hazardous events. Here, a global AR database (1999–2014) with relevant information from MERRA-2 reanalysis, QuikSCAT and AIRS satellite observations are used to better understand and quantify the role of near-surface static stability in modulating surface winds during landfalling ARs. The temperature difference between the surface and 1 km MSL (ΔT; used here as a proxy for near-surface static stability), and integrated water vapor transport (IVT) are analyzed to quantify their relationships to surface winds using bivariate linear regression. In four regions where AR landfalls are common, the MERRA-2-based results indicate that IVT accounts for 22-38% of the variance in surface wind speed. Combining ΔT with IVT increases the explained variance to 36-52%. Substitution of QuikSCAT surface winds and AIRS ΔT in place of the MERRA-2 data largely preserves this relationship (e.g., 44% compared to 52% explained variance for USA West Coast). Use of an alternate static stability measure–the bulk Richardson number–yields a similar explained variance (47%). Lastly, AR cases within the top and bottom 25% of near-surface static stability indicate that extreme surface winds (gale or higher) are more likely to occur in unstable conditions (5.3%/14.7% during weak/strong IVT) than in stable conditions (0.58%/6.15%).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document