Probability of afternoon precipitation in eastern United States and Mexico enhanced by high evaporation (original) (raw)

Nature Geoscience volume 4, pages 434–439 (2011) Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Moisture and heat fluxes from the land surface to the atmosphere form a critical nexus between surface hydrology and atmospheric processes, particularly those relevant to precipitation. Although current theory suggests that soil moisture generally has a positive impact on subsequent precipitation, individual studies have shown support both for1,2,3,4 and against5,6,7 this positive feedback. Broad assessment of the coupling between soil moisture and evapotranspiration, and evapotranspiration and precipitation, has been limited by a lack of large-scale observations. Quantification of the influence of evapotranspiration on precipitation remains particularly uncertain. Here, we develop and apply physically based, objective metrics for quantifying the impacts of surface evaporative and sensible heat fluxes on the frequency and intensity of convective rainfall during summer, using North American reanalysis data. We show that high evaporation enhances the probability of afternoon rainfall east of the Mississippi and in Mexico. Indeed, variations in surface fluxes lead to changes in afternoon rainfall probability of between 10 and 25% in these regions. The intensity of rainfall, by contrast, is largely insensitive to surface fluxes. We suggest that local surface fluxes represent an important trigger for convective rainfall in the eastern United States and Mexico during the summer, leading to a positive evaporation–precipitation feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$259.00 per year

only $21.58 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Figure 1: The sensitivity of convective triggering and rainfall depth to evaporative fraction.

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Figure 2: The sensitivity of TFS and AFS to rainfall time period.

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Figure 3: Normalized, non-dimensional versions of sensitivity maps.

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Figure 4: Functional relationships between normalized metrics and mean evaporative fraction.

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Koster, R. D., Suarez, M. J., Higgins, R. W. & Van den Dool, H. M. Observational evidence that soil moisture variations affect precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1241 (2003).
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Findell, K. L. & Eltahir, E. A. B. An analysis of the soil moisture-rainfall feedback, based on direct observations from Illinois. Water Resour. Res. 33, 725–735 (1997).
    Article Google Scholar
  3. D’Odorico, P. & Porporato, A. Preferential states in soil moisture and climate dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 8848–8851 (2004).
    Article Google Scholar
  4. Clark, D. B., Taylor, C. M. & Thorpe, A. J. Feedback between the land surface and rainfall at convective length scales. J. Hydrometeorol. 5, 625–639 (2004).
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Georgakakos, K. P., Bae, D-H. & Cayan, D. R. Hydroclimatology of continental watersheds, 1. Temporal analysis. Water Resour. Res. 31, 655–675 (1995).
    Article Google Scholar
  6. Cook, B. I., Bonan, G. B. & Levis, S. Soil moisture feedbacks to precipitation in southern Africa. J. Clim. 19, 4198–4206 (2006).
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Giorgi, F., Mearns, L. O., Shields, C. & Mayer, L. A regional model study of the importance of local versus remote controls of the 1988 drought and the 1993 flood over the central United States. J. Clim. 9, 1150–1162 (1996).
    Article Google Scholar
  8. Guo, Z. et al. GLACE: The global land–atmosphere coupling experiment. Part II: Analysis. J. Hydrometeorol. 7, 611–625 (2006).
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Mahanama, S. P. P. & Koster, R. D. AGCM biases in evaporation regime: Impacts on soil moisture memory and land–atmosphere feedback. J. Hydrometeorol. 6, 656–669 (2005).
    Article Google Scholar
  10. Hohenegger, C., Brockhaus, P., Bretherton, C. S. & Schär, C. The soil moisture-precipitation feedback in simulations with explicit and parameterized convection. J. Clim. 22, 5003–5020 (2009).
    Article Google Scholar
  11. Koster, R. D. & Suarez, M. J. Impact of land surface initialization on seasonal precipitation and temperature prediction. J. Hydrometeorol. 4, 408–423 (2003).
    Article Google Scholar
  12. Mesinger, F. et al. North American regional reanalysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 87, 343–360 (2006).
    Article Google Scholar
  13. Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: A review. Earth Sci. Rev. 99, 125–161 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
  14. Mahfouf, J-F. Analysis of soil moisture from near-surface parameters—a feasibility study. J. Appl. Meteorol. 30, 1534–1547 (1991).
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Findell, K. L. & Eltahir, E. A. B. Atmospheric controls on soil moisture-boundary layer interactions: Part I: Framework development. J. Hydrometeorol. 4, 552–569 (2003).
    Article Google Scholar
  16. Betts, A. K. Land–surface–atmosphere coupling in observations and models. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 1, 4 (2009).
    Article Google Scholar
  17. Alfieri, L., Claps, P., D’Odorico, P., Laio, F. & Over, T. M. An analysis of the soil moisture feedback on convective and stratiform precipitation. J. Hydrometeorol. 9, 280–291 (2008).
    Article Google Scholar
  18. Von Storch, H. & Zwiers, F. W. Statistical Analysis in Climate Research (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).
    Book Google Scholar
  19. Findell, K. L. & Eltahir, E. A. B. Atmospheric controls on soil moisture-boundary layer interactions: Part II: Feedbacks within the continental United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 4, 570–583 (2003).
    Article Google Scholar
  20. Zhang, Y. & Klein, S. A. Mechanisms affecting the transition from shallow to deep convection over land: Inferences from observations of the diurnal cycle collected at the ARM Southern Great Plains site. J. Atmos. Sci. 67, 2943–2959 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
  21. Romps, D. M. & Kuang, Z. Nature versus Nurture in Shallow Convection. J. Atmos. Sci. 67, 1655–1666 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
  22. Schär, C., Lüthi, D., Beyerle, U. & Heise, E. The soil-preciptation feedback: A process study with a regional climate model. J. Clim. 12, 722–741 (1999).
    Article Google Scholar
  23. Koster, R. et al. Regions of strong coupling between soil moisture and precipitation. Science 305, 1138–1140 (2004).
    Article Google Scholar
  24. Lintner, B. R. & Neelin, J. D. Soil moisture impacts on convective margins. J. Hydrometeorol. 10, 1026–1039 (2009).
    Article Google Scholar
  25. R, Koster et al. GLACE: The global land–atmosphere coupling experiment. Part I: Overview. J. Hydrometeorol. 7, 590–610 (2006).
    Article Google Scholar
  26. De Ridder, K. Land surface processes and the potential for convective precipitation. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 30085–30090 (1997).
    Article Google Scholar
  27. Lin, J. W. B. & Neelin, J. D. Toward stochastic deep convective parameterization in general circulation models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1162 (2003).
    Google Scholar
  28. Milly, P. C. D. et al. Stationarity is dead: Whither water management? Science 319, 573–574 (2007).
    Article Google Scholar
  29. Seneviratne, S. I., Lüthi, D., Litschi, M. & Schär, C. Land–atmosphere coupling and climate change in Europe. Nature 443, 205–209 (2006).
    Article Google Scholar
  30. Cragoa, R. & Brutsaert., W. Daytime evaporation and the self-preservation of the evaporative fraction and the Bowen ratio. J. Hydrolol. 178, 241–255 (1996).
    Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Stouffer, S. Malyshev, F. D’Andrea, S. Seneviratne and A. Berg for providing comments on the manuscript. We thank A. Wittenberg for help with the determination of ENSO years. P.G. and B.R.L. are supported by an NSF grant and B.R.L. is also supported by a NOAA grant and an NJAES Hatch grant. National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) data provided by the National Climatic Data Center from their website: http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov/data.php.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Pierre Gentine and Benjamin R. Lintner: These authors contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, 201 Forrestal Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA
    Kirsten L. Findell
  2. Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, 203 SW Mudd, 500 120th Street, New York, New York 10027, USA
    Pierre Gentine
  3. Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901, USA
    Benjamin R. Lintner
  4. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research/GFDL, 201 Forrestal Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA
    Christopher Kerr

Authors

  1. Kirsten L. Findell
  2. Pierre Gentine
  3. Benjamin R. Lintner
  4. Christopher Kerr

Contributions

K.L.F. performed the analysis of the data and wrote the paper. K.L.F., P.G. and B.R.L. jointly designed and refined the study. P.G. and B.R.L. contributed equally to the work. C.K. converted the original data to netCDF format. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence toKirsten L. Findell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Findell, K., Gentine, P., Lintner, B. et al. Probability of afternoon precipitation in eastern United States and Mexico enhanced by high evaporation.Nature Geosci 4, 434–439 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1174

Download citation

This article is cited by