A SCALE TO CHARACTERIZE

THE STRENGTH AND IMPACTS

OF ATMOSPHERIC RIVERS
F. Martin R alph, Jonathan J. Rutz, Jason M. Cordeira, Michael Dettinger, Michael Anderson,
David Reynolds, L awrence J. Schick, and Chris Smallcomb

A scale for atmospheric river intensity and potential impacts is introduced, enhancing
situational awareness and forecast communication.

A
tmospheric rivers (ARs) have emerged as a
subject of broad interest not only in the
scientific community, but also with water man-
agers, emergency managers, media, the public, and
policy makers. The role of ARs in creating extreme
precipitation, flooding, drought, and other impacts
is well established (Table 1). Major field experiments,
such as the 6-yr-long interagency CalWater program
of field studies, have been conducted on ARs (Ralph
et al. 2016). Recently, the linkages between ARs and
other key phenomena such as the warm conveyor belt
and tropical moisture exports have been elucidated
(e.g., Dettinger et al. 2015). The recently released
Fourth National Climate Assessment now includes
ARs as a type of extreme storm (along with tropical
storms, severe convection, and winter storms) and
highlights increasing AR occurrence and inten-
sity as a climate change risk (Wuebbles et al. 2017).

AFFILIATIONS: R alph —Center for Western Weather and
Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Univer-
sity of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Rutz—Western
Region Headquarters, NOAA/National Weather Service, Salt Lake
City, Utah; Cordeira—Department of Atmospheric Science and
Chemistry, Plymouth State University, Plymouth, New Hampshire,
and Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes, Scripps
Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, California; Dettinger—Water Cycle Branch, U.S. Geological
Survey, Carson City, Nevada, and Center for Western Weather and
Water Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University
of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, and Global Water
Center, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada; Anderson —Cali-
fornia Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California;
Reynolds —Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmen-
tal Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado;
Schick*—Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
Washington; Smallcomb —NOAA/National Weather Service, Reno,
Nevada
* Retired.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: F. Martin Ralph, mralph@ucsd.edu
The abstract for this article can be found in this issue, following the table
of contents.
DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0023.1
In final form 14 September 2018
©2019 American Meteorological Society
For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright
information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy.

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY FEBRUARY 2019 | 269

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 Table 1. Selected scientific findings and impacts associated with ARs.
ARs on the West Coast…
Cause the heaviest rains
Bring warmest storms
(less snow, more rain)
Cause West Coast floods
Cause storm surges in coastal
areas
Yield extreme coastal winds
Breach levees
Cause landslides, debris flows,
and avalanches
Bring cycles of wet and dry
years
Fill reservoirs and provide
water supplies
End West Coast droughts
Sustain wetlands, floodplains,
and fisheries
Water deserts and forests far
inland, modulate wildfire risks
Freshen estuaries but some-
times threaten estuarine fauna
Modify banks and bottom sedi-
More invertebrate densities and diversity after major AR
ments, modulating aquatic fauna
flooding; 10 times more in predisturbed settings
in mountain streams
Quantitative finding References
92% of West Coast’s heaviest 3-day rain events fed by ARs Ralph and Dettinger (2012)
Average >50% more precipitation and 2.5°C warmer Dettinger (2004); Backes et al.
than other storms in Sierra Nevada (2015); Guan et al. (2016)
Ralph et al. (2006); Neiman
40%–90% of major floods in West Coast rivers have
et al. (2011); Konrad and
been fed by ARs
Dettinger (2017)
15%–50% of annual sea level maxima are associated with
Khouakhi and Villarini (2016)
AR-related cyclones
20%–50% of extreme coastal-wind episodes associated
Waliser and Guan (2017)
with ARs
81% of Central Valley levee breaks happened during ARs Florsheim and Dettinger (2015)
ARs cause 68% of postfire debris flows in Southern Oakley et al. (2017); Young et al.
California (2017); Hatchett et al. (2017)
Account for 85% of multiyear precipitation variance in
Dettinger and Cayan (2014)
California
30%–50% of California rain, snow, and streamflow from Guan et al. (2010); Dettinger
ARs et al. (2011)
40%–75% of droughts on West Coast ended by an AR Dettinger (2013)
77% of ecologically significant inundations of Yolo Bypass
Florsheim and Dettinger (2015)
floodplain, Sacramento River, initiated by ARs
Statistically significant relations found between summer
normalized difference vegetation index (greenness) and Albano et al. (2017)
areas burned in parts of interior Southwest
Mar 2011 ARs freshened San Francisco Bay by 60%,
Cheng et al. (2016)
resulting in wild oyster kill rate of 97%–100%
Herbst and Cooper (2010)

Community interest in the subject led to the devel-
opment of a definition of “atmospheric river” for the
Glossary of Meteorology (American Meteorological
Society 2018; Ralph et al. 2018), and an International
Atmospheric Rivers Conference (IARC) brought
together over 100 people representing AR work on
six continents (Ralph et al. 2017a).
The anomalously wet 2016/17 cool season over the
western United States highlighted the need for greater
distinction between the majority of ARs that are pri-
marily beneficial and the minority of ARs that are pri-
marily hazardous. ARs of varying intensity affected
Northern California during this time, contributing to
reservoir storage, snowpack, and drought relief, but
also cumulatively leading to the Oroville Dam crisis
during February 2017 (Fig. 1). One particularly strong
AR in January 2017 produced extreme precipitation
over the Feather River basin (Fig. 2), in which the
Oroville Dam is located. The active weather pattern
over the western United States during this timeframe
led to numerous requests for differentiation between
weaker and stronger ARs—many of these requests
came directly from operational staff with the Na-
tional Weather Service, who must communicate
potential impacts to the public.
The term atmospheric river has entered the scien-
tific and public lexicon (American Meteorological
Society 2018; Ralph et al. 2018), but while the me-
teorological community often focuses on AR-related
hazards (a minority of storms), information regarding
AR-related benefits (most storms) is often lacking.
Yet in California, which has the largest interannual
variability in precipitation of any state (Dettinger
et al. 2011), ARs contribute 25%–50% of annual
precipitation (including critical snowpack) in just a
few days each year (Dettinger et al. 2011; Ralph et al.
2013; Rutz et al. 2014). Furthermore, the top 5% wet-
test days each year, most of which are attributable
to ARs, are responsible for 85% of the interannual
variability in precipitation over Northern California
(Dettinger and Cayan 2014). Therefore, the presence
or absence of a few AR events can “make or break”

270 | FEBRUARY 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
Fig. 1. Photographs illustrating the wide range of water levels at Oroville Dam and associated challenges faced
in managing water in an environment of extremes, for which variability is driven by atmospheric rivers. Figures
are all public domain and accessed via the California Department of Water Resources (CADWR) with photo
credits: (a) Zack Cunningham/CADWR, 23 Oct 2015; (b) Paul Hames/CADWR, 23 Jun 2005; (c) Dale Kolke/
CADWR, 15 Feb 2017; and (d) Dale Kolke/CADWR, 27 Feb 2017.

precipitation over the course of the water year.1
Many water managers recognize the benefits of ARs
in terms of water supply (J. Jasperse 2018, Sonoma
County Water Agency, personal communication;
G. Woodside 2018, Orange County Water District,
personal communication). In recognition of the key
role ARs play in Californian hydroclimate, the state
passed legislation in 2015 creating the “Atmospheric
River Research, Mitigation and Climate Forecast-
ing”2 program, which aims to develop methods to
better characterize and communicate information
about ARs to policy makers, decision-makers, and
the public. While much has been learned about ARs
on the U.S. West Coast, they have been found to be
1
The term water year is used extensively in the western United
States based on the annual cycle of precipitation and runoff.
For example, water year 2016 started on 1 October 2015 and
ended on 30 September 2016.
2
For more information see https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB758.
of similar importance in other key areas globally, for
example, Europe (Lavers et al. 2011; Ramos et al. 2015;
Eiras-Barca et al. 2018) and South America (Viale
and Nuñez 2011).
Currently, there is no concise method for convey-
ing the spectrum of benefits and hazards faced by
communities during a particular AR event. This
paper, written by hydrometeorological scientists,
weather forecasters, and users of weather infor-
mation, introduces a scale for characterizing the
strength and impacts of ARs. This scale is intended
to serve the western United States, and other regions
with significant AR climatologies, in the same way
that scales for hurricanes (Elsner and Kara 1999),
tornadoes (Fujita 1981), and nor’easters (Kocin and
Uccellini 2004) have served other parts of the country.
The paper first describes the characteristics of ARs
and the selection of vertically integrated water vapor
transport (IVT) and AR event duration as key metrics
by which to gauge AR strength. The AR scale is then
defined, followed by a discussion of the frequencies

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY FEBRUARY 2019 | 271

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 and impacts associated with ARs of varying strength,
as defined by the scale, over the western United States.
The implications of this study are then summarized,
and a forecast example is presented.
IDENTIFYING THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF ATMOSPHERIC RIVERS ON WHICH
TO BASE A SCALE. What is an atmospheric river?
Development of a scale for ARs requires specification
of what constitutes an AR. There now exists a formal
definition in the Glossary of Meteorology that can
form the basis (American Meteorological Society
2018). As defined in the glossary, “an atmospheric
river is a long, narrow and transient corridor of strong
horizontal water vapor transport that is typically as-
sociated with a low-level jet stream ahead of the cold
front of an extratropical cyclone” (Zhu and Newell
1998; Ralph et al. 2004, 2006, 2017b; Bao et al. 2006;
Stohl et al. 2008; Warner et al. 2012; Cordeira et al.
2013; Sodemann and Stohl 2013; Dacre et al. 2015).
Some ARs entrain water vapor from the tropics (e.g.,
Stohl et al. 2008; Ralph et al. 2011; Cordeira et al. 2013;
Sodemann and Stohl 2013), but this is not a trait of all
ARs. Atmospheric rivers frequently lead to heavy pre-
cipitation where they are forced upward, for example,
by mountains or by ascent in the warm conveyor belt.
Horizontal water vapor transport in the midlatitudes
occurs primarily in atmospheric rivers and is focused
in the lower troposphere. (Henceforth, the term trans-
port represents the vertically integrated horizontal flux
of water vapor, and not the vertical fluxes of water
vapor such as land–air, sea–air, and convection that
are largely the focus of past meteorological studies.)
This definition represents an AR as an “object” in
space and time that has the appropriate character-
istics. This has led to the development of many AR
detection techniques (ARDTs) that can identify the
locations, times, and characteristics of ARs region-
ally or globally (Shields et al. 2018). However, it is
also useful (especially in context of many practical,
on-the-ground applications and communications) to
consider an Eulerian perspective, that is, that of an
observer at a specific location monitoring conditions
over time at that site. From this perspective, the ob-
server experiences the passage of an AR as a sequence
of meteorological conditions associated with the AR.
Many studies take this approach, particularly those
describing the climatological characteristics of ARs
(e.g., Rutz et al. 2014; Guan and Waliser 2015). The AR
scaling method introduced here takes this Eulerian
perspective. For this reason, the term atmospheric
river event will henceforth refer to the period that AR
conditions occur at a given location.
272 | FEBRUARY 2019
What variable to use to measure ARs? Historically, both
vertically integrated water vapor (IWV; also known as
precipitable water) and IVT (see appendix for calcula-
tion) have been used to define the spatial extent and
intensity of ARs. Initially, AR-related studies used sat-
ellite-based observations of IWV as a proxy to identify
ARs, since observations of column wind speed are not
available everywhere (Ralph et al. 2004; Neiman et al.
2008). However, IVT is less dependent on surface eleva-
tion, more directly related to precipitation outcomes
(e.g., Moore et al. 2012; Rutz et al. 2014; Oakley et al.
2017), and is used in most current studies as the basis for
identifying ARs (e.g., Cordeira et al. 2017; Young et al.
2017; Waliser and Guan 2017; Dettinger et al. 2018).
Furthermore, numerical weather prediction models
predict IVT more skillfully than precipitation itself,
offering an advantage in forecasting (Lavers et al. 2016).
Hence, IVT is also used here in defining the AR scale.
What is the range of AR intensities in terms of IVT? Since
IVT is chosen to define the AR scale, it is useful to
examine the wide range of IVT magnitudes associated
with ARs. In many ARDT strategies, the term atmo-
spheric river is, by definition, restricted to features with
IVT ≥ 250 kg m–1 s–1 (and IWV ≥ 2.0 cm). However,
the IVT values in ARs cover a wide range, with re-
analyses and observations of ARs from radiosondes and
dropsondes providing many examples of landfalling
ARs over the northeast Pacific with IVT magnitudes
>1,000 kg m–1 s–1 and IWV values >3.5 cm, as shown
in Figs. 2a and 2b. In this example, a landfalling AR in
early January 2017 contained radiosonde-derived IWV
and IVT magnitudes of 3.5 cm and 1,102 kg m–1 s–1,
respectively, at Bodega Bay (BBY), California, where AR
conditions (i.e., IVT ≥ 250 kg m–1 s–1) persisted for ~36 h.
Furthermore, offshore dropsonde measurements from
21 ARs collected over several field campaigns show that
observed AR IVT intensities can exceed 1,250 kg m–1 s–1.
In addition to observational data, experience with the
AR Landfall Probability Tool (Cordeira et al. 2017),
which uses 3-hourly Global Forecast System (GFS) out-
put, shows that ensemble forecasts contain many ARs
with IVT ≥ 500, and on occasion IVT ≥ 1,000 kg m–1 s–1.
It has already been found useful to represent the “AR
intensity” as the maximum value of IVT at a given
location during the AR event at that location. Based on
these observations and analyses of ARs that have made
landfall on the U.S. West Coast, the following intensity
thresholds are chosen for the AR scale:
• weak is ≥250–500 kg m–1 s–1,
• moderate is ≥500–750 kg m–1 s–1 (transitional from
mostly beneficial to hazardous),
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
Fig. 2. (a) Satellite-observed IWV and (b) GFS-analyzed IVT over the northeastern Pacific Ocean and western
United States at 1800 UTC 8 Jan 2017. (c) Rainfall category (R-CAT; Ralph and Dettinger 2012) precipitation
totals during 6–8 Jan 2017 and (d) USGS streamflow percentiles at 1500 UTC 9 Jan 2017.

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY FEBRUARY 2019 | 273

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 • strong is ≥750–1,000 kg m–1 s–1,
• extreme is ≥1,000–1,250 kg m–1 s–1, and
• exceptional is ≥1,250 kg m–1 s–1.
These thresholds can be applied to observational
analyses of past events, or to forecasts.
To better communicate the magnitude of the
strongest ARs, based on their frequencies of occur-
rence, Dettinger et al. (2018) used reanalysis data
from 1948 to 2015 to diagnose IVT return periods
for different locations along the U.S. West Coast. An
example of this is shown in Fig. 3 for the landfall loca-
tion of the storm highlighted in Fig. 2. It shows that
the return periods for 750, 1,000, and 1,250 kg m–1 s–1
are roughly 1, 3, and 20 years , respectively, for those
locations (these IVT thresholds are 3-h averages). A
more comprehensive analysis of the entire U.S. West
Coast is provided in Dettinger et al. (2018), which
reveals that the Oregon coast has the strongest ARs
on average, with IVT reaching 1,000 kg m–1 s–1 about
once per year, while the Washington coast sees this
once every 2 years, San Francisco once every 3 years,
and Los Angeles about once every 10 years. These
results refine earlier studies of AR landfall frequency
by Neiman et al. (2008), Rutz et al. (2014), and others
Fig . 3. Return period of selected values of IVT within landfalling ARs at 25°–40°N on the coast, based on 3-h
MERRA reanalysis data from 1980 to 2016.
274 | FEBRUARY 2019
that also concluded ARs were more common in the
Pacific Northwest than in California.
The important role of duration of AR conditions at landfall.
Although the maximum intensity of IVT during a
landfalling AR largely controls the hourly rain rates,
it has also been shown that the storm-total precipita-
tion (and hence runoff) is strongly controlled by the
storm-total water vapor transport (Ralph et al. 2013).
In this framework, a “storm” or an “AR event” is de-
fined by the period during which AR conditions are
continuously met at a given location. This analysis was
based on observations of AR conditions using an atmo-
spheric river observatory (ARO) and found that 74% of
the variance in storm-total precipitation is explained
by variance in storm-total upslope IVT (where the
upslope direction is based on regional terrain orienta-
tion). This study found that an average AR lasted 20 h
at this location, a result confirmed by analysis from
Rutz et al. (2014) using reanalysis methods. Rutz et al.
(2014) extended this result from one coastal location
to the entire coast and showed that AR duration varies
from about 18 h on average to about 25 h depending
on latitude. Lamjiri et al. (2017) concluded also that in
the western United States, storm duration was a more
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
important parameter in deter- Table 2. (top) An AR intensity scale based on maximum instantaneous
mining storm-total precipita- IVT magnitude and duration of AR conditions (i.e., IVT > 250 kg m –1 s –1),
tion than was the magnitude of and (bottom) a subjective assessment of the potential for beneficial or
peak hourly precipitation rate hazardous impacts.
within the storm. Max IVT Duration of AR conditions (h)
In summary, AR duration (kg m –1 s –1) ≤24 ≥24–48 ≥48
and (IVT) intensity are the key ≤250 Not an AR Not an AR Not an AR
characteristics in determining
≥250–500 Weak AR AR Cat 1 AR Cat 2
streamflow magnitudes and
≥500–750 AR Cat 1 AR Cat 2 AR Cat 3
related hydrologic impacts.
Since AR durations greater ≥750–1,000 AR Cat 2 AR Cat 3 AR Cat 4
than ~24 h are, subjectively, ≥1,000–1,250 AR Cat 3 AR Cat 4 AR Cat 5
often recognized as being as- ≥1,250 AR Cat 4 AR Cat 5 AR Cat 5
sociated with greater impacts, AR category scale Assessment of beneficial vs hazardous impacts
this study classifies AR dura- AR Cat 1 Primarily beneficial
tions as ≤24, ≥24–48, and AR Cat 2 Mostly beneficial, but also hazardous
≥48 h. The ~24-h threshold is
AR Cat 3 Balance of beneficial and hazardous
simply a convenient, though
AR Cat 4 Mostly hazardous, but also beneficial
arbitrary, marker of event-
based impacts as a function AR Cat 5 Primarily hazardous
of duration.
Some dramatic recent examples illustrate ways that Based on this behavior, the AR scale will use 24–
stronger and more persistent IVTs along the U.S. West 48-h duration as the norm. To accommodate the fact
Coast have been associated with more hazardous im- that some ARs will have shorter duration, and some
pacts as compared to weaker and less persistent ARs. longer, as well as the fact that impacts on streamflow
For example, the 8 January 2017 AR depicted in Figs. 2a are so sensitive to duration (e.g., Ralph et al. 2013), the
and 2b produced 72-h rainfall totals on 6–8 January AR will be downgraded by one level if its duration is
2017 that exceeded 200 mm at 22 Cooperative Observer <24 h, and upgraded if ≥48 h.
Program (COOP) observing sites across Northern and
central California, and totals that exceeded 300 mm A SCALE TO CATEGORIZE AR STRENGTHS
at five COOP observing sites (Fig. 2c). These rainfall AND IMPACTS. The previous section established
totals resulted in record streamflow for the date on the roles of IVT and the duration of AR conditions
several rivers and streams across the California Coastal in producing high-impact hydrometeorological
Ranges and northern Sierra Nevada (Fig. 2d). events. This section lays out a strategy for a scaling
of ARs that considers both these
factors, based on time series of
observed or predicted conditions
at individual points. Because
this approach does not include
shape requirements typical of
earlier studies’ object-oriented
AR identification methods, and
it uses only time series of IVT in
an Eulerian framework, it greatly
simplifies implementation of the
scale in gridded datasets like re-
analyses and forecasts.
After much consideration, it
Fig. 4. A scale that categorizes AR was decided to use a 0.5° × 0.5°
events based on the maximum
spatial grid to assess and display
instantaneous IVT associated with
a period of AR conditions (i.e., AR conditions in terms of the
IVT ≥ 250 kg m –1 s –1) and the dura- scale. The resolution is ultimately
tion of those conditions at a point. somewhat arbitrary. The value

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY FEBRUARY 2019 | 275

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
Table 3. Examples of AR Cat 1–5 events making landfall along the California coast during water year 2017.
Max IVT Max IWV
Date and time of max IVT (kg m –1 s –1) (mm)
1200 UTC 2 Feb 2017 >400 >25
1200 UTC 19 Nov 2016 >650 >30
1200 UTC 14 Oct 2016 >800 >35
1800 UTC 8 Jan 2017 >1,100 >35
1200 UTC 7 Feb 2017 1,183 >30
used here is based on the following considerations:
i) the spatial areas of ARs are much larger than this;
ii) gridded data on this resolution are increasingly
available from reanalyses, operational global weather
prediction models, and even climate models, at scales
comparable to this; and iii) although it is technically
feasible to apply the AR categorization method to
finer grids, it is likely that the greatest value of the
AR scale will be for situational awareness.
The AR scale categorizes AR events based on
the maximum instantaneous IVT “intensity”
and the duration of the event (i.e., the duration of
IVT ≥ 250 kg m–1 s–1) at a given point (Table 2; Fig. 4).
An AR event at a given location is categorized by lo-
cating the row associated with the maximum IVT and
the column associated with the event duration. For
example, a maximum IVT ≥500 and <750 kg m–1 s–1
would be classified as being of “moderate” intensity,
and a duration ≥24 and <48 h would rank this as an
AR category (Cat) 2 event. If the same event instead
had a duration ≥48 h, it would be upgraded to an AR
Cat 3 event, and a duration <24 h would downgrade
it to an AR Cat 1 event. This system of classification
works up and down the AR scale with two excep-
tions. First, the maximum category on the scale is
AR Cat 5, even if event duration is ≥48 h. Second,
“weak” ARs (i.e., those with maximum IVT ≥250
and <500 kg m–1 s–1, but with a duration <24 h) do
not receive a categorical ranking on the AR scale,
as represented by the gray area in Fig. 4 (even weak
events require a minimum duration of 12 h).
Figure 5 and Table 3 provide examples of a range of
AR Cat 1–5 events using both satellite-observed IWV
[from Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I)] and
IVT (from GFS) from the 2016/17 cool season. The
synoptic-scale pattern associated with these events is
characterized by a midlatitude cyclone–anticyclone
pair over the northeast Pacific and an AR located
between these features. The AR in each case is readily
◀ Fig . 5. Satellite-observed IWV and GFS-analyzed IVT over the northeastern Pacific and western United
States during examples of (a) AR Cat 1, (b) AR Cat 2, (c) AR Cat 3, (d) AR Cat 4, and (e) AR Cat 5 events from
the 2016/17 cool season. An example of an AR Cat 4 event is shown in Fig. 1.
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Duration of AR AR scale
conditions (h) category AR strength
−24 AR Cat 1 Weak
−42 AR Cat 2 Moderate
−36 AR Cat 3 Strong
−36 AR Cat 4 Extreme
−84 AR Cat 5 Exceptional
identified as a long and narrow region of large IWV
and IVT extending poleward and eastward toward
the U.S. West Coast. Generally, the magnitude of
IWV and IVT increases as a function of increasing
AR Cat, but because IWV magnitude is not directly
considered as part of the AR scale, it does not increase
uniformly as a function of increasing AR Cat. For
example, the IWV magnitude associated with the
listed AR Cat 5 event is smaller than that associated
with the listed AR Cat 3 and 4 events.
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF AR
E VE NTS I N TH E WE STE R N U N ITE D
STATES BASED ON AR CATEGORY. This sec-
tion presents the average annual number of AR Cat 1–5
events from January 1980 to April 2017 over the west-
ern United States, based on IVT data calculated from
Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and
Applications (MERRA; Fig. 6; Rienecker et al. 2011).
ARs of each category tend to be most frequent over
the northeastern Pacific Ocean as shown in earlier
studies (e.g., Rutz et al. 2014; Guan and Waliser 2015).
AR Cat 5 and Cat 4 events over land are generally lim-
ited to the coastal regions north of Point Conception
(~34°N) and west of the Cascades and Sierra Nevada.
The map of AR Cat 5 events (Fig. 6a) highlights a
local maximum in occurrence of the strongest ARs
near the Oregon coast, reflecting patterns in the IVT
return period analysis of Dettinger et al. (2018). Since
IWV generally increases equatorward and low-level
winds associated with ARs increase poleward (as
shown in Ralph et al. 2017b), this likely represents the
most favorable geographic overlap. It should also be
noted that the scale identifies a few (once every few
years) AR Cat 4 and 5 events along the very southern
portion of the domain (i.e., the Baja Peninsula, South-
ern California, and southern Arizona). These events
occur during summer and fall and are likely related to
tropical cyclones, the North American monsoon, and
FEBRUARY 2019 | 277
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 other non-AR features but
are identified by the scale,
since it has no geometric
requirements for meteoro-
logical features.
T he d i s t r ibut ion of
AR Cat 2 and 3 events
(Figs. 6c,d) more clearly
shows the influence of to-
pography on ARs over the
western United States. As
midlatitude cyclones sup-
portive of ARs move east-
ward across this region,
they interact with complex
and formidable mountain
ranges, which tend to result
in cyclolysis and AR decay
through rainout and other
processes (Rutz et al. 2015).
Therefore, achieving the
combination of IVT mag-
nitude and event duration
associated with AR Cat 2
and 3 events becomes in-
creasingly difficult as one
moves inland. The distri-
bution of AR Cat 1 and
weak AR events (Figs. 6e,f)
is characterized by a simi-
lar spatial pattern to that of
higher AR Cat events, but
their frequency is larger
due to less restrictive crite-
ria. Note that the frequency
of events over the northern
Great Plains is inflated by
warm-season events featur-
ing strong IVT.
In summary, the spa-
tial distributions of weak
AR events and AR Cat 1–5
events over the western
United States closely re-
sembles the pattern of AR
frequency shown by Rutz
et al. (2014), with the num-
ber of events becoming
Fig . 6. Average annual number of weak ARs and AR Cat 1–5 events from increasingly restricted to
Jan 1980 to Apr 2017. Analysis is based on MERRA. Values of at least one per lower-elevation corridors
year or greater are shown in color fill, and the frequency of one per 4 years and coastal regions as a
on average is shown (dashed line).
function of increasing AR
Cat (i.e., increasing IVT

278 | FEBRUARY 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 strongest and longest lasting.
This section analyzes ARs
that arrived over the MERRA
grid cell closest to Bodega
Bay (38°N, 123.125°W) to il-
lustrate the seasonality of AR
Cat events at that location,
and the typical spatial extent
of AR conditions and associ-
ated precipitation.
The seasonality of all AR
Cat events near Bodega Bay
is characterized by a rapid
increase during October, a
maximum during November–
March (peaking in December),
a gradual decline from April to
June, and a minimum during
July–September (Fig. 7). The
strongest, AR Cats 4 and 5,
Fig. 7. Seasonality of AR Cat events near Bodega Bay based on events from events are primarily restricted
MERRA from Jan 1980 to Apr 2017. to the October–March period,
and are most frequent during
and event duration). AR Cat 4 and especially AR January and February. During the July–September
Cat 5 events are primarily limited to coastal locations, minimum, events stronger than AR Cat 2 are rare.
whereas weak AR events occur multiple times per The average characteristics of ARs in each AR Cat
year, on average, nearly everywhere over the western are calculated and summarized in Table 4. It is not
United States. surprising that, from AR Cat 1 to Cat 5, the number
of events decreases (from 268 to 10), the mean dura-
SPATIAL EXTENT AND PRECIPITATION tion increases (from 21 to 72 h), and the maximum
IMPACTS OF AR CAT 1–5 EVENTS MAK- 3-h mean IVT increases (from 480 to 1,118 kg m–1 s–1).
ING LANDFALL AT A NORTHERN CALI- It is more surprising, however, that these maximum
FORNIA COASTAL LOCATION. It is common 3-h mean IVT values for AR Cats 3–5 are slightly less
for strong AR events to have impacts across broad than the IVT thresholds used in determining these
areas of the West, although the heaviest precipitation categories. This indicates that at least some AR Cat
and greatest impacts are limited to where the AR is 3–5 events achieve their categorical rating by being

Table 4. Summary of average AR Cat characteristics for ARs that struck Bodega Bay from
Jan 1980 to Apr 2017.
Characteristic Weak Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5
No. of events 392 268 138 78 22 10
No. of AR Cat days 599 484 316 225 74 36
Avg duration (h) 13.3 21.0 32.1 47.6 58.2 71.7
Std dev duration (h) 4.7 9.5 10.7 18.4 20.6 29.4
Avg max IVT (kg m –1 s –1) 373.7 480.0 599.4 701.1 896.6 1,118.0
Std dev max IVT (kg m –1 s –1) 62.4 108.6 104.4 147.0 111.1 127.6
Avg storm-total IVT (107 kg m –1) 1.6 2.8 4.8 7.7 10.7 15.4
Std dev storm-total IVT (10 kg m )
7 –1
1.2 1.1 1.4 2.8 3.8 5.7
Avg 3-day IVT (107 kg m –1)a 4.9 5.7 6.7 7.9 9.5 11.2
Std dev 3-day IVT (107 kg m –1)a 0.4 1.5 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.7
a
3-day IVT is calculated as the 72-h total IVT beginning at 0000 UTC on any AR Cat day.

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY FEBRUARY 2019 | 279

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 Table 5. AR Cat 5 events at 38°N, 123.125°W, near Bodega Bay between Jan 1980 and Apr 2017. Flood in-
formation is from either the annual peak flow USGS data table or from streamflow time series.
AR Cat 5 Water Duration Flood stage (32 ft)
event No. year Year Start time/date End time/date (h) at Guerneville?
1 1980 1980 0600 UTC 11 Jan 1200 UTC 14 Jan 78 Yes (37 ft)
2 1984 1983 0600 UTC 9 Nov 0600 UTC 11 Nov 48 —
3 1986 1986 0000 UTC 14 Feb 0000 UTC 20 Feb 144 Yes (49 ft)
4 1991 1991 1200 UTC 2 Mar 0000 UTC 5 Mar 60 Yes (33 ft)
5 1996 1995 1500 UTC 10 Dec 0000 UTC 13 Dec 57 Yes (32 ft)
6 1997 1996 1800 UTC 16 Nov 0000 UTC 20 Nov 78 No
7 1997 1996/97 1800 UTC 28 Dec 0600 UTC 3 Jan 132 Yes (45 ft)
8 2011 2010 0900 UTC 23 Oct 1200 UTC 25 Oct 51 No
9 2015 2015 0900 UTC 5 Feb 1200 UTC 7 Feb 51 No
10 2017 2017 0600 UTC 7 Jan 0600 UTC 9 Jan 48 Yes (40 ft)
1 event Oct (1), Nov (2), Dec (2), Average:
Frequency
per 3.8 yr Jan (2), Feb (2), Mar (1) 75 h

Table 6. All dates with stream stage at Guerneville exceeding 12.2 m (40 ft) stage
(daily) between 1980 and Nov 2017. AR Cat levels are evaluated for each date, and for
several days preceding, at Bodega Bay using reanalysis. CFS: cubic feet per second.
CFS AR Cat AR Cat AR Cat AR Cat Max AR
Year Date CFS rank day 0 day −1 day −2 day −3 Cat
1980 14 Jan 55,300 23 5 — — — 5
1981 20 Dec 64,300 14 4 — — — 4
1983 27 Jan 68,500 10 4 — — — 4
1983 1 Mar 58,700 18 4 4 — — 4
1983 2 Mar 57,600 19 4 4 4 —
1983 3 Mar 56,800 20 — 4 4 4
1986 15 Feb 65,600 12 5 — — — 5
1986 16 Feb 59,800 17 5 5 — —
1986 17 Feb 82,300 5 5 5 5 —
1986 18 Feb 97,700 1 5 5 5 5
1986 19 Feb 80,100 6 5 5 5 5
1986 20 Feb 56,300 21 — 5 5 5
1995 9 Jan 86,200 3 4 4 4 4 4
1995 10 Jan 88,700 2 4 4 4 4
1995 11 Jan 62,000 15 0 4 4 4
1995 14 Jan 55,800 22 3 3 3 — 3
1995 10 Mar 65,100 13 1 4 4 — 4
1997 1 Jan 72,600 8 5 — — — 5
1997 2 Jan 75,000 7 5 — — —
2004 18 Feb 60,100 16 4 — — — 4
2005 31 Dec 69,000 9 3 3 3 3 3
2006 1 Jan 82,400 4 1 3 3 3
2006 2 Jan 65,700 11 — 1 3 3

280 | FEBRUARY 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
“promoted” due to their du-

with the day the event started at Bodega Bay. (c) As in (b), but the maximum 3-day totals across all 10 AR Cat 5 events are shown. Panels (b) and (c) use
Fig. 8. (a) Average of maximum AR Cat conditions during all AR Cat 5 events that occurred at a grid cell near Bodega Bay, CA [10 events at 38°N, 123.125°W
(star)], from MERRA Jan 1980 to Apr 2017. (b) Average of 3-day precipitation accumulation on 10 AR Cat 5 events that hit Bodega Bay; 3-day intervals start
ration exceeding 48 h, and
that this happens more often
than being “demoted” due to
the duration being less than
24 h. The increases in mean
AR duration, maximum 3-h
mean IVT, and storm-total
IVT progress steadily from
AR Cat 1 to Cat 5, suggesting
the scaling is representing
systematic changes in the core
characteristics of AR intensity
and duration.
It is useful to examine the
relationship between AR Cat
events and major f looding
along the Russian River {i.e.,
12.2 m or 40 ft at the Guern­
eville stream gauge [U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS) stream
gauge 11467000]}. Of the 10
AR Cat 5 events near this
location, 6 were associated
with major flooding, 3 struck
either early in the season or
during a major drought when
dry soils attenuated runoff,
and 1 occurred when stream-
flow data were not available
(Table 5). Another approach
is to compare all major flood

daily COOP precipitation observations (i.e., each dot shown).

events on the Russian River
to the presence of AR Cat
events, as shown in Table 6.
A number of these dates were
consecutive, and the events
can be viewed as 11 separate
floods, with some being of 2,
3, or even 5 days in duration.
Because of the typical 1–2-day
time lag between precipitation
and flooding on this river, the
AR Cat levels on the day of
the flood and on the 1–2 days
before are assessed. As with
the Ralph et al. (2006) study,
which first showed the con-
nection between landfalling
ARs and flooding on the Rus-
sian River, all 11 floods in this
analysis were associated with
landfalling ARs. In particular,

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY FEBRUARY 2019 | 281

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 282 |
FEBRUARY 2019
Fig. 9. (top) Average storm-total precipitation during all AR Cat 1–5 events near Bodega Bay based on daily COOP precipitation observations (i.e., each
dot shown). (bottom) As in top panels, but for temperature anomaly.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC

3 out of 10 (33% of) AR Cat 5 events, 6 out of 22 (30% each AR Cat at Bodega Bay, is shown in Fig. 9 (top).
of) AR Cat 4 events, and only 2 out of 78 (3% of) AR Cat Because many weaker ARs last much less than
3 were associated with major flooding at Guerneville. 3 days, this analysis uses a variable time window for
The geographic spread of AR Cat intensities during accumulations, based on the observed times of each
AR Cat 5 landfalls near Bodega Bay is shown in Fig. 8a AR at Bodega Bay. The precipitation associated with
(for each grid point, this is calculated by determining AR Cat 1 and Cat 2 events is modest enough (mostly
the maximum AR Cat achieved during an AR Cat 5 25–75 mm) to be largely beneficial (unless preceded
event at Bodega Bay, and then averaging over the 10 by a strong AR, or producing other hazards), whereas
such events). On average, AR Cat 4 and Cat 5 condi- AR Cat 5 events produce well over 200 mm at many
tions are localized near Bodega Bay and the immediate sites. To further this analysis, the frequency of oc-
West Coast. Meanwhile, at least AR Cat 1 conditions currence of different 3-day precipitation totals, at all
exist along the entire coast from Southern California to COOP sites in California, associated with different
Washington and extend inland, affecting much of the AR Cat events is shown in Fig. 10. It reveals that AR
western United States. A test of whether this method Cat 1–3 events group closely together in terms of
is contaminated by propagation of the AR along the precipitation, but that AR Cat 4 and 5 events have a
West Coast was made by including up to 2 days before much higher probability of producing extreme 3-day
and after the AR Cat 5 conditions at Bodega Bay, and precipitation totals. This distinction suggests a sig-
results were generally insensitive to this. nificant increase in hazardous impacts during AR Cat
The precipitation associated with the 10 AR Cat 4 and 5 events, and it could be the basis for classifying
5 events near Bodega Bay is examined by calculat- these as “major” ARs, an approach analogous to that
ing mean 3-day accumulations at COOP weather used in hurricane and tornado scales.
stations across the western United States. The 3-day The large precipitation totals associated with the
accumulation window begins with the onset of each higher AR Cat levels in Fig. 9 (top) are often more
AR Cat 5 event, with 3 days chosen for simplicity (as hazardous falling as rain, adding immediate runoff
in Ralph and Dettinger 2012), and because the aver- that floods rivers and lowlands, and more beneficial
age duration of AR Cat 5 events is ~3 days (Table 4). falling as snow, increasing water storage via mountain
The largest precipitation values occur over Northern snowpack. However, ARs are often warm storms, lead-
California, where many sites exceed 150 mm, and some ing to increased snow levels and a skewing away from
reach 250–300 mm (8–12 in.; Fig. 8b). Many sites in benefits toward hazards as heavy rainfall occurs at
Oregon receive 100–150 mm, while sites as distant as higher elevations. Indeed, Fig. 9 (bottom) shows that
Idaho and Utah receive 50–100 mm (a significant, but on days with AR landfall near Bodega Bay (together
mostly beneficial, amount given the dryness of many with the subsequent day), temperatures across the Cali-
inland areas). Figure 8c shows the maximum 3-day ac- fornia–Nevada region become increasingly warmer as
cumulation for each COOP
site during any of the 10
AR Cat 5 events and reveals
that many sites in North-
ern California experienced
greater than 300 mm of
precipitation, and some over
500 mm (~20 in.) during
at least one of the AR Cat
5 events. It is notable that
events exceeding 400 mm
(~16 in.) in 3 days are very
rare nationally, with only
four COOP sites per year
reaching this threshold
(Ralph and Dettinger 2012).
The spatial distribu-
tion of precipitation over Fig. 10. Frequency of 3-day precipitation totals among COOP observing sta-
the western United States, tions in California, for AR Cat events that struck Bodega Bay, on Northern
during the occurrence of California’s coast.

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY FEBRUARY 2019 | 283

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
Fig. 11. (a) Analyzed maximum IVT and (b) analyzed AR duration used to calculate the analyzed AR Cat, (c) the
forecast AR Cat, and (d) the analyzed AR Cat based on the GFS forecast initialized at 0000 UTC 3 Feb 2017 and
valid during a 5-day forecast period from 1200 UTC 5 Feb 2017 through 1200 UTC 10 Feb 2017, which represents
forecast lead times from 60 to 180 h. Note that (a), (b), and (d) are based on GFS analyses during this period,
whereas (c) is based on the GFS forecast. In (c) and (d), the gray star indicates the location of the Oroville Dam.
In (d), filled (unfilled) small and large dots indicate underforecasts (overforecasts) of 1 and 2 AR Cats in (c).

a function of AR Cat. This increases the chances that
these storms will yield larger fractions of rain than
snow, particularly at higher elevations that usually
receive snow, contributing to a greater risk of floods
and related hazards across this region.
AR SCALE FORECAST EXAMPLE. The AR
scale can be implemented using forecast data, and a
preliminary concept is highlighted here by focusing
on a series of landfalling AR events coinciding with
the Oroville Dam crisis during early February 2017
(Fig. 11). In this example, the GFS forecast initialized
at 0000 UTC 3 February 2017 is used to calculate AR
Cats during a 5-day forecast period valid from 1200
UTC 5 February 2017 through 1200 UTC 10 February
2017, which represents forecast lead times from 60 to
180 h. Shown for this period are the analyzed maxi-
mum IVT (Fig. 11a) and the analyzed AR duration
used to calculate the analyzed AR Cat (Fig. 11b), the
forecast AR Cat (Fig. 11c), and the analyzed AR Cat
(Fig. 11d). Note that Figs. 11a, 11b, and 11d are based
on GFS analyses during this period, whereas Fig. 11c
is based on the GFS forecast.
In this example, the 60–180-h forecast indicates a
broad swath of AR Cat 5 conditions along the axis of
the AR, which verified. The forecast also highlights

284 | FEBRUARY 2019

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
the potential for AR Cat 4
conditions along the coast
of Northern California and
southern Oregon, as well as
AR Cat 3 conditions over
the northern Sierra Nevada
(near the Oroville Dam) and
AR Cat 2 conditions extend-
ing into the Great Basin
(Fig. 11c). In general, verifi-
cation is ~1 AR Cat stronger
than predicted forecast over
much of the western United
States, and ~1–2 AR Cat
stronger from coastal Cali-
fornia northeastward into
eastern Oregon, Idaho, and
southwestern Montana. AR
Cat 5 conditions occurred
over land north of San Fran-
cisco Bay, AR Cat 4+ condi-
tions occurred along a much
greater stretch of the coast
and over the Oroville Dam,
and AR Cat 3 conditions oc-
curred much farther inland
than anticipated (Fig. 11d).
Taking a broader view, the
Fig. 12. Average maximum AR Cat annually.
distribution of higher (low-
er) AR Cat verifications
along the northwestern and southeastern (south- duration to characterize AR strength, providing a
western and northeastern) edges of the AR suggests a framework for differentiating between the impacts of
more zonally oriented AR than was anticipated in the those that are primarily beneficial and those that are
forecast. In addition, the underforecast AR Cat over the primarily hazardous. The scale is also readily applied
northern Rockies indicates that the GFS struggled to to gridded datasets such as atmospheric reanalyses,
capture the inland penetration of the AR, particularly weather forecasts, and climate projections. Given an
downstream from the core of the AR. Hence, we stress increased focus on AR-related science and impacts,
that while the AR scale provides a solid framework for it is likely that this AR Cat scale will be widely used
characterizing the strength and impacts of an AR, it to communicate the benefits and hazards associated
is dependent on an accurately modeled atmospheric with ARs both in the western United States and in
forecast, and will only be as reliable as the forecast other regions where ARs contribute strongly to hy-
model being used. drometeorological impacts.
While the concept shown here is only preliminary, In addition to introducing the AR Cat scale, this
it is the authors’ plan to implement the AR forecast paper provides a few diagnostics regarding their fre-
operationally over the coming months, with a fin- quency of occurrence and their impacts on precipita-
ished product likely resembling that shown here. tion. Figure 12 shows the average annual maximum
AR Cat event across the western United States and
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK. This paper illustrates that the scale is broadly applicable across
presents a scale to characterize atmospheric river the region. AR Cat 4 or 5 events occur primarily
strength and impacts in a way that is both useful along the Northern California and Pacific North-
to scientists and conducive to communication with west coasts, whereas the strongest ARs affecting the
nonexperts. The scale uses the intensity of verti- Southern California coast at roughly annual scales are
cally integrated water vapor transport and AR event typically AR Cat 2 or 3. Most of the West (except the

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY FEBRUARY 2019 | 285

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 highest interior) experience AR Cat 1 events at least
annually. In addition, the well-established connec-
tion between ARs and extreme precipitation in the
western United States is highlighted, revealing that
the strongest AR events often affect the entire West
to some degree. It was shown that 30% of landfalling
AR Cat 4 and 5 events (combined) were associated
with significant floods on the Russian River, and that
all of the floods in the period studied were associated
with landfalling ARs.
A few shortcomings of the AR scale are worth
pointing out. First, some high-impact events (e.g.,
debris flows) result primarily from very intense rain-
fall rates that can be short-lived (Oakley et al. 2017).
Hence, the duration requirement of the scale may
overexert itself by not recognizing weather systems
that will be short-lived, but capable of producing such
intense rates. Second, the impacts associated with
a particular AR Cat may vary due to other factors
such as temperature throughout the column, and
particularly the rain/snow line. More broadly, since
the AR scale is not linked to a particular location,
the impacts associated with the AR Cats will vary
spatially as a function of geographic considerations
such as topography, land surface type, and anteced-
ent conditions.
Future work is envisioned to more fully describe
the transition between primarily beneficial and
primarily hazardous AR Cat events in terms of a va-
riety of hydrometeorological benefits (e.g., increased
reservoir levels, drought relief, and water supply)
and hazards (e.g., heavy rain, flooding, and high
winds). Since the AR scale is easily applied to grid-
ded datasets, these analyses can shed light on how
the relationship between AR Cat and impacts varies
geographically. The unique mesonet throughout
the western United States (Ralph et al. 2014; White
et al. 2013), combined with storm reports from the
National Weather Service, is uniquely tailored for
this work. The scale presented here can also be used,
along with verification studies such as those by Wick
et al. (2013), DeFlorio et al. (2018), and Nardi et al.
(2018), to reveal whether AR forecast skill varies as a
function of AR Cat over different locales. An intrigu-
ing new direction is emerging on the correspondence
between strong ARs and strong extratropical cyclo-
genesis (Eiras-Barca et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2019),
which could benefit from an objective scaling of ARs.
Finally, the AR scale, along with information from
numerical weather prediction model ensembles, can
be leveraged to produce gridded, probabilistic fore-
casts of AR intensity, which should prove valuable to
a variety of users.
286 | FEBRUARY 2019
APPENDIX: KEY TERMINOLOGY AND
CALCULATION OF IVT. A clear understand-
ing of the AR scale presented here benefits from the
definition of a few key terms.
• An atmospheric river (AR) is a long, narrow,
transient corridor of strong horizontal water
vapor transport that is typically associated with a
low-level jet stream ahead of the cold front of an
extratropical cyclone (American Meteorological
Society 2018). An AR can be thought of as both
an Eulerian object and a Lagrangian process—it
encompasses a three-dimensional region of the
atmosphere in which certain dynamic processes
are taking place, with a shape and location that
change as these processes evolve.
• AR conditions denote the instantaneous presence
of IVT ≥ 250 kg m–1 s–1 at a point (i.e., in an Eule-
rian sense).
• An AR event refers to the full period of time over
which AR conditions occur at a fixed geographical
point (i.e., applies in an Eulerian sense). Note that
the AR scale presented is based on AR conditions
and AR events at a point and does not account for
the movement or tracking of ARs themselves (i.e.,
as objects).
• The spatial and temporal distribution of AR events
as a function of AR scale category relies on verti-
cally integrated vapor transport (IVT), which is
calculated as
p
1 t
g p∫b
IVT = − qVh dp, (A1)
where q is the specific humidity, Vh is the horizon-
tal wind vector, g is the acceleration due to gravity,
pb is 1,000 hPa, and pt is 200 hPa (e.g., Neiman et al.
2008; Moore et al. 2012). The IVT is calculated us-
ing atmospheric data from the MERRA reanalysis
at 0.5° × 0.625° horizontal resolution (Rienecker
et al. 2011). Vertical levels used to calculate IVT
are every 25 hPa from 1,000 to 700 hPa and every
50 hPa from 700 to 200 hPa.
REFERENCES
Albano, C., M. Dettinger, and C. Soulard, 2017: Influ-
ence of atmospheric rivers on vegetation produc-
tivity and fire patterns in the southwestern U.S. J.
Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., 122, 308–323, https://doi
.org/10.1002/2016JG003608.
American Meteorological Society, 2018: Atmospheric riv-
er. Glossary of Meteorology, http://glossary.ametsoc
.org/wiki/Atmospheric_river.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
Backes, T. M., M. L. Kaplan, R. Schumer, and J. F.
Mejia, 2015: A climatology of the vertical structure
of water vapor transport to the Sierra Nevada in
cool season atmospheric river precipitation events. J.
Hydrometeor., 16, 1029–1047, https://doi.org/10.1175
/JHM-D-14-0077.1.
Bao, J.-W., S. A. Michelson, P. J. Neiman, F. M. Ralph,
and J. M. Wilczak, 2006: Interpretation of enhanced
integrated water vapor bands associated with extra-
tropical cyclones: Their formation and connection to
tropical moisture. Mon. Wea. Rev., 134, 1063–1080,
https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3123.1.
Cheng, B. S., A. L. Chang, A. Deck, and M. C. Ferner,
2016: Atmospheric rivers and the mass mortality of
wild oysters: Insight into an extreme future? Proc.
Biol. Sci., 283, 20161462, https://doi.org/10.1098
/rspb.2016.1462.
Cordeira, J. M., F. M. Ralph, and B. J. Moore, 2013: The
development and evolution of two atmospheric riv-
ers in proximity to western North Pacific tropical
cyclones in October 2010. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 4234–
4255, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00019.1.
—, —, A. Martin, N. Gaggini, J. R. Spackman, P. J.
Neiman, J. J. Rutz, and R. Pierce, 2017: Forecasting
atmospheric rivers during CalWater 2015. Bull. Amer.
Meteor. Soc., 98, 449–459, https://doi.org/10.1175
/BAMS-D-15-00245.1.
Dacre, H. F., P. A. Clark, O. Martinez-Alvarado, M. A.
Stringer, and D. A. Lavers, 2015: How do atmospheric
rivers form? Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 96, 1243–1255,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00031.1.
DeFlorio, M. J., D. E. Waliser, B. Guan, D. A. Lavers,
F. M. Ralph, and F. Vitart, 2018: Global assessment
of atmospheric river prediction skill. J. Hydrome-
teor., 19, 409–426, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM
-D-17-0135.1.
Dettinger, M. D., 2004: Fifty-two years of “Pineapple-
Express” storms across the west coast of North
America. PIER Project Rep. CEC-500-2005-004,
California Energy Commission, 15 pp., www.energy
.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-500-2005-004/CEC
-500-2005-004.PDF.
—, 2013: Atmospheric rivers as drought busters on
the U.S. West Coast. J. Hydrometeor., 14, 1721–1732,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-02.1.
—, and D. Cayan, 2014: Drought and the California
delta—A matter of extremes. San Francisco Estu-
ary Watershed Sci., 12 (2), https://doi.org/10.15447
/sfews.2014v12iss2art4.
—, F. M. Ralph, T. Das, P. J. Neiman, and D. Cayan,
2011: Atmospheric rivers, floods, and the water re-
sources of California. Water, 3, 455–478, https://doi
.org/10.3390/w3020445.
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
—, —, and D. Lavers, 2015: Setting the stage for a glob-
al science of atmospheric rivers. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geo-
phys. Union, 96, https://doi.org/10.1029/2015EO038675.
—, —, and J. J. Rutz, 2018: Empirical return periods
of the most intense vapor transports during historical
atmospheric river landfalls on the U.S. West Coast. J.
Hydrometeor., 19, 1363–1377, https://doi.org/10.1175
/JHM-D-17-0247.1.
Eiras-Barca, J., A. M. Ramos, J. G. Pinto, R. M. Trigo,
M. L. R. Liberato, and G. Miguez-Macho, 2018: The
concurrence of atmospheric rivers and explosive
cyclogenesis in the North Atlantic and North Pa-
cific basins. Earth Syst. Dyn., 9, 91–102, https://doi
.org/10.5194/esd-9-91-2018.
Elsner, J., and A. B. Kara, 1999: Hurricanes of the North
Atlantic: Climate and Society. Oxford University
Press, 488 pp.
Florsheim, J., and M. Dettinger, 2015: Promoting atmo-
spheric-river and snowmelt-fueled biogeomorphic
processes by restoring river-floodplain connectivity
in California’s Central Valley. Geomorphic Approach-
es to Integrated Floodplain Management of Lowland
Fluvial Systems in North America and Europe, P.
Hudson and H. Middelkoop, Eds., Springer, 119–141,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2380-9_6.
Fujita, T., 1981: Tornadoes and downbursts in the con-
text of generalized planetary scales. J. Atmos. Sci.,
38, 1511–1534, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469
(1981)038<1511:TADITC>2.0.CO;2.
Guan, B., and D. E. Waliser, 2015: Detection of atmo-
spheric rivers: Evaluation and application of an algo-
rithm for global studies. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 120,
12 514–12 535, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024257.
—, N. P. Molotch, D. E. Waliser, E. J. Fetzer, and P.
J. Neiman, 2010: Extreme snowfall events linked
to atmospheric rivers and surface air temperature
via satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37,
L20401, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044696.
—, D. E. Waliser, F. M. Ralph, E. J. Fetzer, and P. J.
Neiman, 2016: Hydrometeorological characteristics
of rain-on-snow events associated with atmospheric
rivers. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 2964–2973, https://doi
.org/10.1002/2016GL067978.
Hatchett, B. J., S. Burak, J. J. Rutz, N. S. Oakley, E. H.
Bair, and M. L. Kaplan, 2017: Avalanche fatalities
during atmospheric river events in the western
United States. J. Hydrometeor., 18, 1359–1374, https://
doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-16-0219.1.
Herbst, D. B., and S. D. Cooper, 2010: Before and af-
ter the deluge—Rain-on-snow flooding effects on
aquatic invertebrate communities of small streams
in the Sierra Nevada, California. J. N. Amer. Benthol.
Soc., 29, 1354–1366, https://doi.org/10.1899/09-185.1.
FEBRUARY 2019 | 287
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 Khouakhi, A., and G. Villarini, 2016: On the relationship
between atmospheric rivers and high sea water levels
along the U.S. West Coast. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,
8815–8822, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070086.
Kocin, P. J., and L. W. Uccellini, 2004: A snowfall im-
pact scale derived from Northeast storm snowfall
distributions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 85, 177–194,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-85-2-177.
Konrad, C. P., and M. D. Dettinger, 2017: Flood runoff
in relation to water vapor transport by atmospheric
rivers over the western United States, 1949–2015.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 11 456–11 462, https://doi
.org/10.1002/2017GL075399.
Lamjiri, M. A., M. D. Dettinger, F. M. Ralph, and
B. Guan, 2017: Hourly storm characteristics along
the U.S. West Coast: Role of atmospheric rivers in
extreme precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 11 456–
11 462, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075399.
Lavers, D. A., R. P. Allan, E. F. Wood, G. Villa-
rini, D. J. Brayshaw, and A. J. Wade, 2011: Winter
f loods in Britain are connected to atmospheric
rivers. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L23803, https://doi
.org/10.1029/2011GL049783.
—, D. E. Waliser, F. M. Ralph, and M. D. Dettinger,
2016: Predictability of horizontal water vapor trans-
port relative to precipitation: Enhancing situational
awareness for forecasting western U.S. extreme
precipitation and flooding. Geophys. Res. Lett., 43,
2275–2282, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067765.
Moore, B. J., P. J. Neiman, F. M. Ralph, and F. Barthold,
2012: Physical processes associated with heavy flood-
ing rainfall in Nashville, Tennessee and vicinity
during 1–2 May 2010: The role of an atmospheric
river and mesoscale convective systems. Mon. Wea.
Rev., 140, 358–378, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR
-D-11-00126.1.
Nardi, K. M., E. A. Barnes, and F. M. Ralph, 2018: As-
sessment of numerical weather prediction model
reforecasts of the occurrence, intensity, and location
of atmospheric rivers along the West Coast of North
America. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 3343–3362, https://
doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0060.1.
Neiman, P. J., F. M. Ralph, G. A. Wick, J. D. Lundquist,
and M. D. Dettinger, 2008: Meteorological char-
acteristics and overland precipitation impacts of
atmospheric rivers affecting the West Coast of North
America based on eight years of SSM/I satellite
observations. J. Hydrometeor., 9, 22–47, https://doi
.org/10.1175/2007JHM855.1.
—, L. J. Schick, F. M. Ralph, M. Hughes, and G. A.
Wick, 2011: Flooding in western Washington: The
connection to atmospheric rivers. J. Hydrometeor., 12,
1337–1358, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1358.1.
288 | FEBRUARY 2019
Oakley, N. S., J. T. Lancaster, M. L. Kaplan, and F. M.
Ralph, 2017: Synoptic conditions associated with
cool season post-fire debris flows in the Transverse
Ranges of southern California. Nat. Hazards, 88,
327–354, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2867-6.
Ralph, F. M., and M. D. Dettinger, 2012: Historical and
national perspectives on extreme West Coast precipi-
tation associated with atmospheric rivers during De-
cember 2010. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 783–790,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00188.1.
—, P. J. Neiman, and G. A. Wick, 2004: Satellite and
CALJET aircraft observations of atmospheric rivers
over the eastern North Pacific Ocean during the
winter of 1997/98. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132, 1721–1745,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<1721:SA
CAOO>2.0.CO;2.
—, —, —, S. I. Gutman, M. D. Dettinger, D. R.
Cayan, and A. B. White, 2006: Flooding on Califor-
nia’s Russian River: Role of atmospheric rivers. Geo-
phys. Res. Lett., 33, L13801, https://doi.org/10.1029
/2006GL026689.
—, —, G. N. Kiladis, K. Weickman, and D. W.
Reynolds, 2011: A multi-scale observational case
study of a Pacific atmospheric river exhibiting
tropical-extratropical connections and a mesoscale
frontal wave. Mon. Wea. Rev., 139, 1169–1189, https://
doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3596.1.
—, T. Coleman, P. J. Neiman, R. J. Zamora, and M. D.
Dettinger, 2013: Observed impacts of duration and
seasonality of atmospheric-river landfalls on soil
moisture and runoff in coastal Northern California.
J. Hydrometeor., 14, 443–459, https://doi.org/10.1175
/JHM-D-12-076.1.
—, and Coauthors, 2014: A vision for future obser-
vations for western U.S. extreme precipitation and
flooding. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ., 153, 16–32,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2014.03176.x.
—, and Coauthors, 2016: CalWater field studies de-
signed to quantify the roles of atmospheric rivers
and aerosols in modulating U.S. West Coast pre-
cipitation in a changing climate. Bull. Amer. Meteor.
Soc., 97, 1209–1228, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS
-D-14-00043.1.
—, and Coauthors, 2017a: Atmospheric rivers emerge
as a global science and applications focus. Bull. Amer.
Meteor. Soc., 98, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D
-16-0262.1.
—, and Coauthors, 2017b: Dropsonde observations
of total water vapor transport within North Pacific
atmospheric rivers. J. Hydrometeor., 18, 2577–2596,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0036.1.
—, M. D. Dettinger, M. M. Cairns, T. J. Galarneau,
and J. Eylander, 2018: Defining “atmospheric river”:
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
 How the Glossary of Meteorology helped resolve a
debate. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99, 837–839, https://
doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0157.1.
Ramos, A. M., R. M. Trigo, M. L. R. Liberato, and
R. Tome, 2015: Daily precipitation extreme events
in the Iberian Peninsula and its association with
atmospheric rivers. J. Hydrometeor., 16, 579–597,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-14-0103.1.
Rienecker, M., and Coauthors, 2011: MERRA: NASA’s
Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and
Applications. J. Climate, 24, 3624–3648, https://doi
.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00015.1.
Rutz, J. J., W. J. Steenburgh, and F. M. Ralph, 2014:
Climatological characteristics of atmospheric rivers
and their inland penetration over the western United
States. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 905–921, https://doi
.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00168.1.
—, —, and —, 2015: The inland penetration of at-
mospheric rivers over western North America: A La-
grangian analysis. Mon. Wea. Rev., 143, 1924–1944,
https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-14-00288.1.
Shields, C. A., and Coauthors, 2018: Atmospheric
River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project
(ARTMIP): Project goals and experimental design.
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2455–2474, https://doi
.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2455-2018.
Sodemann, H., and A. Stohl, 2013: Moisture origin
and meridional transport in atmospheric rivers and
their association with multiple cyclones. Mon. Wea.
Rev., 141, 2850–2868, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR
-D-12-00256.1.
Stohl, A., C. Forster, and H. Sodemann, 2008: Remote
sources of water vapor forming precipitation on
the Norwegian west coast at 60° N—A tale of hur-
ricanes and an atmospheric river. J. Geophys. Res.,
113, D05102, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009006.
Viale, M., and M. N. Nuñez, 2011: Climatology of win-
ter orographic precipitation over the subtropical
central Andes and associated synoptic and regional
AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
characteristics. J. Hydrometeor., 12, 481–507, https://doi
.org/10.1175/2010JHM1284.1.
Waliser, D., and B. Guan, 2017: Extreme winds and
precipitation during landfall of atmospheric rivers.
Nat. Geosci., 10, 179–183, https://doi.org/10.1038
/ngeo2894.
Warner, M. D., C. F. Mass, and E. P. Salathé Jr., 2012:
Wintertime extreme precipitation events along the
Pacific Northwest coast: Climatology and synoptic
evolution. Mon. Wea. Rev., 140, 2021–2043, https://
doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-11-00197.1.
White, A. B., and Coauthors, 2013: A twenty-first-century
california observing network for monitoring extreme
weather events. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 30, 1585–
1603, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00217.1.
Wick, G. A., P. J. Neiman, F. M. Ralph, and T. M.
Hamill, 2013: Evaluation of forecasts of the water
vapor signature of atmospheric rivers in operational
numerical weather prediction models. Wea. Fore-
casting, 28, 1337–1352, https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF
-D-13-00025.1.
Wuebbles, D. J., and Coauthors, 2017: Our globally
changing climate. Climate Science Special Report:
Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. 1, D. J.
Wuebbles et al., Eds., U.S. Global Change Research
Program, 35–72, https://doi.org/10.7930/J08S4N35.
Young, A. M., K. T. Skelly, and J. M. Cordeira, 2017:
High-impact hydrologic events and atmospheric
rivers in California: An investigation using the
NCEI Storm Events Database. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
3393–3401, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073077.
Zhang, Z., F. M. Ralph, and M. Zheng, 2019: The rela-
tionship between extratropical cyclone strength and
atmospheric river intensity and position. Geophys. Res.
Lett., https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079071, in press.
Zhu, Y., and R. E. Newell, 1998: A proposed algorithm
for moisture fluxes from atmospheric rivers. Mon.
Wea. Rev., 126, 725–735, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520
-0493(1998)126<0725:APAFMF>2.0.CO;2.
FEBRUARY 2019 | 289
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC
Attention AMS Student Members

Stay connected to AMS after graduation

for half the regular membership rate

Let AMS help you build your expertise, your

network, your career. There’s never been a more
important time to be a member.

http://www.ametsoc.org/earlycareer
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/15/23 03:34 PM UTC