A Study of Two Impactful Heavy Rainfall Events in the Southern Appalachian Mountains during Early 2020, Part II; Regional Overview, Rainfall Evolution, and Satellite QPE Utility
<p>Locations of the Pigeon River Basin (PRB, green outline) and Coweeta River sub-Basin (CRB, gray outline), a sub-basin of the Upper Little Tennessee River Basin (ULTRB, blue outline), and topography (shaded) of the southern Appalachian Mountains. The Pigeon River Basin (PRB) corresponds to the borders of Haywood County, North Carolina and extends northward slightly into Cocke and Sevier Counties, Tennessee. The Coweeta River Basin is located in Macon County, North Carolina. Specifics on the locations and elevations of individual rain gauges of the Duke GSMRGN, located in the North Carolina region of the PRB, and CHLRGN, located in the CRB, are provided in <a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-t0A1" class="html-table">Table A1</a>. The center points of the PRB and CRB are located 60 km apart. The Blue Ridge Escarpment (labeled “BRE” and outlined in red) is the boundary between the Blue Ridge and the Piedmont physiographic province. The brown (blue) color-filled “+” symbols highlight two (21) landslide locations documented by the NCGS initiated by the 5–7 February (12–13 April) 2020 heavy rainfall event. Coral dots highlight landslide locations initiated since 1940 not occurring in February or April 2020. Locations of Newport and Chattanooga, Tennessee are also highlighted with a red “+” symbol.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Conceptual model showing (<b>a</b>) hourly rain rate and time (RRt) profile during (<b>b</b>) a single extratropical synoptic scale cyclone event consisting of the “cause” (Δt1) and “trigger” (Δt2) phases of a nearby landslide. The landslide would initiate either during the “trigger” phase or shortly thereafter. Panel (<b>b</b>) is Figure 1 of Medina et al. [<a href="#B17-remotesensing-13-02500" class="html-bibr">17</a>] (© American Meteorological Society. Used with permission.), adapted from Nagle and Serebreny [<a href="#B16-remotesensing-13-02500" class="html-bibr">16</a>], where the precipitation intensity is indicated by the degree of shading. Line segments indicate the early, middle, and late sectors of the storm.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Sea level pressure maps and frontal analysis of the Weather Prediction Center at (<b>a</b>) 1800 UTC 5 February 2020 and (<b>b</b>) 1800 UTC 12 April 2020 (accessed online at <a href="https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/archives/web_pages/sfc/sfc_archive.php" target="_blank">https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/archives/web_pages/sfc/sfc_archive.php</a> on 10 March 2021).</p> "> Figure 4
<p>GFS-analyzed fields valid at 1800 UTC 5 February 2020 of: (<b>a</b>) 400 hPa level geopotential height (dam, solid black contours), wind speed (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading), and wind vectors (kt) and 500 hPa level rising motion × 10<sup>−3</sup> (hPa s<sup>−1</sup>, blue contours; thick dashed contour is zero vertical motion) and (<b>b</b>) 700 hPa level geopotential height (dam, solid black contours), wind speed (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading), equivalent potential temperature (K, final blue (first red) dashed contour value is 321 K (324 K)), and wind vectors (kt). WSR88D (<b>c</b>) composite reflectivity (dBZ) courtesy of the College of DuPage (accessed online at <a href="https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/imagearchive/" target="_blank">https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/imagearchive/</a> on 10 March 2021). Thick dashed line in panel (a) marks the position of the vertical cross sections displayed in Figures 8 and 9 oriented along 34.75°N, extending from 88 to 79°W. The red outline of panel (<b>d</b>) represents the boundary of the 1° × 1° landslide focus region (34.75°N to 35.75°N, 83.5°W to 82.5°W) utilized in making area-averaged rainfall comparisons.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>As in <a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>, except valid at 1800 UTC 12 April 2020 of: (<b>a</b>) 400 hPa level geopotential height (dam, solid black contours), wind speed (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading), and wind vectors (kt) and 500 hPa level rising motion × 10<sup>−3</sup> (hPa s<sup>−1</sup>, blue contours; thick dashed contour is zero vertical motion) and (<b>b</b>) 700 hPa level geopotential height (dam, solid black contours), wind speed (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading), equivalent potential temperature (K, final blue (first red) dashed contour value is 321 K (324 K)), and wind vectors (kt). WSR88D (<b>c</b>) composite reflectivity (dBZ) courtesy of the College of DuPage (accessed online at <a href="https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/imagearchive/" target="_blank">https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/imagearchive/</a> on 10 March 2021).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>As in <a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>, except valid at 1200 UTC 6 February 2020 of: (<b>a</b>) 400 hPa level geopotential height (dam, solid black contours), wind speed (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading), and wind vectors (kt) and 500 hPa level rising motion x 10<sup>−3</sup> (hPa s<sup>−1</sup>, blue contours; thick dashed contour is zero vertical motion) and (<b>b</b>) 700 hPa level geopotential height (dam, solid black contours), wind speed (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading), equivalent potential temperature (K, final blue (first red) dashed contour value is 321 K (324 K)), and wind vectors (kt). WSR88D (<b>c</b>) composite reflectivity (dBZ) courtesy of the College of DuPage (accessed online at <a href="https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/imagearchive/" target="_blank">https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/imagearchive/</a> on 10 March 2021).</p> "> Figure 7
<p>As in <a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>, except valid at 0600 UTC 13 April 2020 of: (<b>a</b>) 400 hPa level geopotential height (dam, solid black contours), wind speed (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading), and wind vectors (kt) and 500 hPa level rising motion × 10<sup>−3</sup> (hPa s<sup>−1</sup>, blue contours; thick dashed contour is zero vertical motion) and (<b>b</b>) 700 hPa level geopotential height (dam, solid black contours), wind speed (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading), equivalent potential temperature (K, final blue (first red) dashed contour value is 321 K (324 K)), and wind vectors (kt). WSR88D (<b>c</b>) composite reflectivity (dBZ) courtesy of the College of DuPage (accessed online at <a href="https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/imagearchive/" target="_blank">https://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/imagearchive/</a> on 10 March 2021).</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Vertical cross-section (endpoints at 34.75°N; 88°W (L), 79°W (R)) of GFS-analysed fields of wind speed normal to the section (m s<sup>−1</sup>, shading and solid contours; thick contour is 21 m s<sup>−1</sup> isotach), equivalent potential temperature (K, final blue (first red) dashed contour value is 321 K (324 K)), and ageostrophic circulation in the section (arrow; reference horizontal ageostrophic wind of 10 m s<sup>−1</sup> is shown in middle top) valid at (<b>a</b>) 0600 UTC and (<b>b</b>) 1200 UTC 6 February 2020.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>As in <a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a>, except valid at (<b>a</b>) 0000 UTC and (<b>b</b>) 0600 UTC 13 April 2020 and thick contour of wind speed normal to the section corresponds to the 33 m s<sup>−1</sup> isotach.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>HYSPLIT 72-h trajectories derived from GFS 0.25° analyses for air parcels ending at the 700 {blue} and 850 {red} hPa levels at (<b>a</b>) 0000 UTC and 34.75°N; 84°W, (<b>b</b>) 0600 UTC and 34.75°N; 82°W, and (<b>c</b>) 0600 UTC 13 April 2020 and 34.75°N; 86.5°W.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Hourly rain rate and time (RRt) profiles of the February 2020 event over the period 0000 UTC 5 February–0000 UTC 7 February 2020 for selected rain gauge observations of the (<b>a</b>) PRB and (<b>b</b>) CRB.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>As in <a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f011" class="html-fig">Figure 11</a>, except for the April 2020 event covering the period 1200 UTC 12 April–1200 UTC 13 April 2020 for selected rain gauge observations of the (<b>a</b>) PRB and (<b>b</b>) CRB. Note the range of hourly rain rate axis is three times greater than that of <a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f011" class="html-fig">Figure 11</a>.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>High-resolution composite reflectivity observations of the KGSP (Greer, SC) NWS WSR88D radar valid 6:54 UTC 13 April 2020. Location of the CRB is highlighted by the marker labeled “Coweeta HL”.</p> "> Figure 14
<p>CMORPH-based event accumulation (mm) for the (<b>a</b>) February and (<b>b</b>) April 2020 storm, mean rain rate (mm h<sup>−1</sup>) over 1° × 1° landslide focus region (<a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>d) for the (<b>c</b>) February and (<b>d</b>) April 2020 event, and maximum rain rate (mm h<sup>−1</sup>) over the 1° × 1° landslide focus region for (<b>e</b>) February and (<b>f</b>) April 2020 event highlighted in the blue-circle curve. Time series of time-averaged rainfall observations of the Duke GSMRGN are included in the orange-triangle curve for comparison. Panels (c) and (<b>d</b>) also contain normalized rain rate standard deviations for CMORPH (grey-circle dashed curve) and Duke GSMRGN observations (gold dashed curve). Time resolution of the plots is every hour. Drops in the Duke GSMRGN curves of panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) represent averaging periods when no tips were recorded at any of the rain gauges in the PRB.</p> "> Figure 15
<p>As in <a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f014" class="html-fig">Figure 14</a>, except based on Enterprise accumulation estimates (mm) for the (<b>a</b>) February and (<b>b</b>) April 2020 storm, mean rain rate (mm h<sup>−1</sup>) over 1° × 1° landslide focus region (<a href="#remotesensing-13-02500-f004" class="html-fig">Figure 4</a>d) for the (<b>c</b>) February and (<b>d</b>) April 2020 event, and maximum rain rate (mm h<sup>−1</sup>) over the 1° × 1° landslide focus region for (<b>e</b>) February and (<b>f</b>) April 2020 event highlighted in the blue-circle curve. Time series of time-averaged rainfall observations of the Duke GSMRGN are included in the orange-triangle curve for comparison. Panels (<b>c</b>) and (<b>d</b>) also contain normalized rain rate standard deviations for Enterprise (grey-circle dashed curve) and Duke GSMRGN observations (gold dashed curve). Time resolution of the plots is every 10 min. Drops in the Duke GSMRGN curves of panels (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) represent averaging periods when no tips were recorded at any of the rain gauges in the PRB.</p> "> Figure 16
<p>Vertical cross-section (endpoints at 34.75°N; 88°W (L), 79°W (R)) of MiRS-estimated equivalent potential temperature retrieved during overpasses by (<b>a</b>) NOAA-20/ATMS at 1825 UTC 6 February 2020 and (<b>b</b>) S-NPP/ATMS at 0659 UTC 13 April 2020.</p> "> Figure 17
<p>Bi-monthly integrated watershed-averaged precipitation accumulation climatological anomaly for fall 2019–spring 2020 of the PRB (11-year climatology; blue) and CRB (86-year climatology; orange) with an early September 2019 starting point. Time series are calculated from the observed and climatology time series in Figure 13 of Part I. Focus of this study is on the two events (5–7 February and 12–13 April 2020) highlighted in the diagram with a red arrow.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Background
2. Methodology
2.1. Surface-Based Observations
2.2. Event Rainfall–Landslide RRt “Profile” Algorithm
2.3. In Situ Rainfall Observations and Space-Based QPE Comparisons
2.4. Space-Borne Observations
2.4.1. Microwave Integrated Retrieval System (MiRS)
2.4.2. Climate Prediction Center Morphing Technique (CMORPH), Second Generation
2.4.3. Goddard Profiling Algorithm (GPROF)
2.4.4. Enterprise
3. Results
3.1. Rainfall Evolution
3.1.1. Rain Gauge Observations
3.1.2. Space-Borne Rainfall Estimates
3.2. Other Space-Borne Nowcasting Aids
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Duke GSMRGN Gauge Attributes | CHLRGN Gauge Attributes | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gauge | Lat. | Lon. | Elev. (m) | Gauge | Lat. | Lon. | Elev. (m) | Gauge | Lat. | Lon. | Elev. (m) |
RG002 | 35°25.5′ | 82°58.2′ | 1731 | RG109 | 35°29.7′ | 83°02.4′ | 1500 | WRG06 | 35°3.62′ | 83°25.8′ | 687 |
RG003 | 35°23.0′ | 82°54.9′ | 1609 | RG110 | 35°32.8′ | 83°08.8′ | 1563 | WRG05 | 35°3.63′ | 83°27.9′ | 1144 |
RG004 | 35°22.0′ | 82°59.4′ | 1922 | RG111 | 35°43.7′ | 82°56.8′ | 1394 | WRG20 | 35°3.89′ | 83°26.5′ | 740 |
RG005 | 35°24.5′ | 82°57.8′ | 1520 | RG112 | 35°45.0′ | 82°57.8′ | 1184 | WRG31 | 35°1.96′ | 83°28.1′ | 1366 |
RG008 | 35°22.9′ | 82°58.4′ | 1737 | RG300 | 35°43.5′ | 83°13.0′ | 1558 | WRG13 | 35°3.75′ | 83°27.4′ | 961 |
RG010 | 35°27.3′ | 82°56.8′ | 1478 | RG301 | 35°42.3′ | 83°15.3′ | 2003 | WRG41 | 35°3.32′ | 83°25.7′ | 776 |
RG011 | 35°23.7′ | 82°54.9′ | 1244 | RG302 | 35°43.2′ | 83°14.8′ | 1860 | WRG12 | 35°2.84′ | 83°27.5′ | 1001 |
RG100 | 35°35.1′ | 83°04.3′ | 1495 | RG303 | 35°45.7′ | 83°09.7′ | 1490 | WRG55 | 35°2.39′ | 83°27.3′ | 1035 |
RG101 | 35°34.5′ | 83°05.2′ | 1520 | RG304 | 35°40.2′ | 83°10.9′ | 1820 | WRG96 | 35°2.72′ | 83°26.2′ | 894 |
RG102 | 35°33.8′ | 83°06.2′ | 1635 | RG305 | 35°41.4′ | 83°07.9′ | 1630 | ||||
RG103 | 35°33.2′ | 83°07.0′ | 1688 | RG306 | 35°44.7′ | 83°10.2′ | 1536 | ||||
RG104 | 35°33.2′ | 83°05.2′ | 1587 | RG307 | 35°39.0′ | 83°11.9′ | 1624 | ||||
RG105 | 35°38.0′ | 83°02.4′ | 1345 | RG308 | 35°43.8′ | 83°10.9′ | 1471 | ||||
RG106 | 35°25.9′ | 83°01.7′ | 1210 | RG309 | 35°40.9′ | 83°09.0′ | 1604 | ||||
RG107 | 35°34.0′ | 82°54.4′ | 1359 | RG310 | 35°42.1′ | 83°07.3′ | 1756 | ||||
RG108 | 35°33.2′ | 82°59.3′ | 1277 | RG311 | 35°45.9′ | 83°08.4′ | 1036 |
Appendix B
Abbreviation | Definition |
---|---|
AR | Atmospheric River |
BRE | Blue Ridge Escarpment |
CHLRGN | Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory Rain Gauge Network |
CRB | Coweeta River sub-Basin |
Duke GSMRGN | Duke Great Smoky Mountains Rain Gauge Network |
MCE | Mesoscale Convective Element |
PRB | Pigeon River Basin |
RRt | Hourly Rain Rate and time |
ULTRB | Upper Little Tennessee River Basin |
References
- Miller, D.; Forsythe, J.; Kusselson, S.; Straka, W., III; Yin, J.; Zhan, X.; Ferraro, R. A Study of Two Impactful Heavy Rainfall Events in the Southern Appalachian Mountains during Early 2020, Part I; Societal Impacts, Synoptic Overview, and Historical Context. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, M.A.; Collins, B.D.; Mirus, B.B. Assessing the feasibility of satellite-based thresholds for hydrologically driven landsliding. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 9006–9023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nippgen, F.; McGlynn, B.L.; Emanuel, R.E.; Vose, J.M. Watershed memory at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory: The effect of past precipitation and storage on hydrologic response. Water Resour. Res. 2016, 52, 1673–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, D.K.; Miniat, C.F.; Wooten, R.M.; Barros, A.P. An expanded investigation of atmospheric rivers in the southern Appalachian Mountains and their connection to landslides. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mirus, B.B.; Staley, D.M.; Kean, J.W.; Smith, J.B.; Wooten, R.; McGuire, L.A.; Ebel, B.A. Conceptual framework for assessing disturbance impacts on debris-flow initiation thresholds across hydroclimatic settings. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation, Golden, CO, USA, 10–13 June 2019; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/11124/173051 (accessed on 9 February 2021).
- Erlingis, J.M.; Gourley, J.J.; Kirstetter, P.-E.; Anagnostou, E.N.; Kalogiros, J.; Anagnostou, M.N.; Petersen, W. Evaluation of operational and experimental precipitation algorithms and microphysical insights during IPHEx. J. Hydrometeorol. 2018, 19, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.; Nauditt, A.; Birkel, C.; Verbist, K.; Ribbe, L. Temporal and spatial evaluation of satellite-based rainfall estimates across the complex topographical and climatic gradients of Chile. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 1295–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirschbaum, D.B.; Stanley, T. Satellite-based assessment of rainfall-triggered landslide hazard for situational awareness. Earths Future 2018, 6, 505–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wooten, R.M.; Witt, A.C.; Miniat, C.F.; Hales, T.C.; Aldred, J.L. Frequency and magnitude of selected historical landslide events in the southern Appalachian Highlands of North Carolina and Virginia: Relationships to rainfall, geological and eco-hydrological controls, and effects. In Natural Disturbances and Historic Range of Variation: Type, Frequency, Severity, and Postdisturbance Structure in Central Hardwood Forests USA; Greenberg, C.H., Collins, B.S., Eds.; Springer Publishing Company: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 203–262. ISBN 978-3-319-21526-6. [Google Scholar]
- Neary, D.G.; Swift, L.W., Jr. Rainfall thresholds for triggering a debris avalanching event in the southern Appalachian Mountains. In Debris Flows, Avalanches: Process, Recognition, and Mitigation; Costa, E., Wieczorek, G.F., Eds.; Review Engineering Geology; Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 1987; Volume 7, pp. 81–92. ISBN 9780813758077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wooten, R.M.; Cattanach, B.L.; Bozdog, G.N.; Isard, S.J.; Fuemmeler, S.J.; Bauer, J.B.; Witt, A.C.; Douglas, T.J.; Gillon, K.A.; Latham, R.S. The North Carolina Geological Survey’s response to landslide events: Methods, findings, lessons learned, and challenges. In Proceedings of the 3rd North American Symposium on Landslides; Special Publication 27; De Graff, J.V., Shakur, A., Eds.; Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists: Brunswick, OH, USA, 2017; pp. 359–370. ISBN 978–0–9897253-7-8. [Google Scholar]
- Bogaard, T.; Greco, R. Invited perspectives. A hydrological look to precipitation intensity duration thresholds for landslide initiation: Proposing hydro-meteorological thresholds. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 18, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collins, B.D.; Oakley, N.S.; Perkins, J.P.; East, A.E.; Corbett, S.C.; Hatchett, B.J. Linking mesoscale meteorology with extreme landscape response: Effects of narrow cold frontal rainbands (NCFRs). J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 2020, 125, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, L.B.; Konrad, C.E.; Schmidlin, T.W. Antecedent upstream air trajectories associated with northwest flow snowfall in the southern Appalachians, USA. Weather. Forecast. 2007, 22, 334–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- North Carolina Geological Survey, Landslides in western North Carolina. Available online: http://landslidesncgs.org/ (accessed on 20 December 2020).
- Nagle, R.E.; Serebreny, S.M. Radar precipitation echo and satellite cloud observations of a maritime cyclone. J. Appl. Meteor. 1962, 1, 279–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Medina, S.; Sukovich, E.; Houze, R.A., Jr. Vertical Structures of Precipitation in Cyclones Crossing the Oregon Cascades. Mon. Weather Rev. 2007, 135, 3565–3586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boukabara, S.-A.; Garrett, K.; Chen, W.; Iturbide-Sanchez, F.; Grassotti, C.; Kongoli, C.; Chen, R.; Liu, Q.; Yan, B.; Weng, F.; et al. MiRS: An all-weather 1DVAR satellite data assimilation and retrieval system. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2011, 49, 3249–3272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boukabara, S.A.; Garrett, K.; Grassotti, C.; Iturbide-Sanchez, F.; Chen, W.; Jiang, Z.; Clough, S.A.; Zhan, X.; Liang, P.; Liu, Q.; et al. A physical approach for a simultaneous retrieval of sounding, surface, hydrometeor, and cryospheric parameters from SNPP/ATMS. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 12600–12619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boukabara, S.-A.; Garrett, K.; Grassotti, C. Dynamic Inversion of Global Surface Microwave Emissivity Using a 1DVAR Approach. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, Y.; Van Delst, P.; Liu, Q.; Weng, F.; Yan, B.; Treadon, R.; Derber, J. Community Radiative Transfer Model (CRTM),-Version 1. NOAA Tech. Rep. 2006, 122, 33. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, S.; Yang, P.; Weng, F.; Liu, Q.; Han, Y.; van Delst, P.; Li, J.; Baum, B. Validation of the community radiative transfer model. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 2011, 112, 1050–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iturbide-Sanchez, F.; Boukabara, S.-A.; Chen, R.; Garrett, K.; Grassotti, C.; Chen, W.; Weng, F. Assessment of a variational inversion system for rainfall rate over land and water surfaces. IEEE Trans. Geosc. Remote Sens. 2011, 49, 3311–3333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Grassotti, C.; Chen, J.; Liu, Q. GPM products from the Microwave-Integrated Retrieval System. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2017, 10, 2565–2574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Grassotti, C.; Liu, Q.; Lee, Y.-K.; Honeyager, R.; Zhou, Y.; Fang, M. The NOAA Microwave Integrated Retrieval System (MiRS): Validation of precipitation from multiple polar orbiting satellites. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2020, 13, 3019–3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, F.; Zou, X.; Sun, N.; Yang, H.; Tian, M.; Blackwell, W.J.; Wang, X.; Lin, L.; Anderson, K. Calibration of Suomi national polar-orbiting partnership advanced technology microwave sounder. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, E.; Lyu, C.-H.J.; Anderson, K.; Leslie, R.V.; Blackwell, W.J. S-NPP ATMS instrument prelaunch and on-orbit performance evaluation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2014, 119, 5653–5670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bolton, D. The computation of equivalent potential temperature. Mon. Weather Rev. 1980, 108, 1046–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [2.0.CO;2" target='_blank'>Green Version]
- Xie, P.; Joyce, R.; Wu, S.; Katz, B. Second Generation CMORPH Precipitation Estimates: Real-Time Production. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Climate Diagnostics and Prediction Workshop, 20–22 October 2020. Available online: https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/CDPW/45/sessions/presentations/session3_Room16_A.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2021).
- Xie, P.; Chen, M.; Shi, W. CPC Unified Gauge-Based Analysis of Global Daily Precipitation. In Proceedings of the 24th AMS Conference on Hydrology, Atlanta, GA, USA, 17–22 January 2010; Available online: https://ams.confex.com/ams/90annual/techprogram/paper_163676.htm (accessed on 23 March 2021).
- Kummerow, C.D.; Olson, W.S.; Giglio, L. A simplified scheme for obtaining precipitation and vertical hydrometeor profiles from passive microwave sensors. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1996, 34, 1213–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kummerow, C.D.; Hong, Y.; Olson, W.S.; Yang, S.; Adler, R.F.; McCollum, J.; Ferraro, R.; Petty, G.; Shin, D.-B.; Wilheit, T.T. The evolution of the Goddard profiling algorithm (GPROF) for rainfall estimation from passive microwave sensors. J. Appl. Meteor. 2001, 40, 1801–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kummerow, C.D.; Randel, D.L.; Kulie, M.; Wang, N.-Y.; Ferraro, R.; Munchak, S.J.; Petkovic, V. The evolution of the Goddard profiling algorithm to a fully parametric scheme. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2015, 32, 2265–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyers, P.C.; Ferraro, R.R.; Wang, N.-Y. Updated screening procedures for GPROF2010 over land: Utilization for AMSR-E. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2015, 32, 1015–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodgers, C.D. Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding: Theory and Practice; Series on Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics; World Scientific: Singapore, 2000; Volume 2, p. 238. ISBN 978-981-281-371-8. [Google Scholar]
- Aires, F.; Prigent, C.; Bernardo, F.; Jimeìnez, C.; Saunders, R.; Brunel, P. A Tool to Estimate Land–Surface Emissivities at Microwave frequencies (TELSEM) for use in numerical weather prediction. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 2011, 137, 690–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sims, E.M.; Liu, G. A parameterization of the probability of snow–rain transition. J. Hydrometeorol. 2015, 16, 1466–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuligowski, R.J.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y. Improvements to the GOES-R rainfall rate algorithm. J. Hydrometeorol. 2016, 17, 1693–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gitro, C.M.; Jurewicz, M.L.; Kusselson, S.J.; Forsythe, J.M.; Kidder, S.Q.; Szoke, E.J.; Bikos, D.; Jones, A.S.; Gravelle, C.M.; Grassotti, C. Using the multi-sensor advected layered precipitable water product in the operational forecast environment. J. Oper. Meteorol. 2018, 6, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Draxler, R.R.; Rolph, G.D. HYSPLIT-Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model; NOAA/Air Resources Laboratory: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2010. Available online: http://ready.noaa.gov/HYSPLIT.php (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Wooten, R.M.; Douglas, T.J.; Scheip, C.M.; Hill, J.S.; Korte, D.M. Slope failures at 96 Trails End Lane, Smokey Mountain Acres, Maggie Valley, North Carolina; North Carolina Geological Survey: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2020; p. 20. [Google Scholar]
Time/Date | QPE Algo. | Mean (mm h−1) | Max. (mm h−1) | Stand. Dev. (mm h−1) | Mean (mm h−1) | Max. (mm h−1) | Stand. Dev. (mm h−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18:43 UTC 5 Feb 2020 | MiRS | 0.31 | 2.20 | 0.54 | 3.57 | 10.22 | 1.91 |
19:12 UTC 5 Feb 2020 | GPROF | 0.05 | 1.23 | 1.62 | 6.82 | 17.16 | 2.48 |
07:06 UTC 6 Feb 2020 | MiRS | 2.43 | 4.60 | 0.91 | 2.78 | 6.59 | 1.32 |
07:10 UTC 6 Feb 2020 | GPROF | 2.76 | 7.97 | 1.62 | 2.33 | 4.86 | 0.89 |
18:16 UTC 6 Feb 2020 | GPROF | 4.49 | 10.50 | 2.39 | 5.18 | 14.65 | 4.11 |
18:25 UTC 6 Feb 2020 | MiRS | 3.11 | 6.50 | 1.02 | 3.58 | 12.90 | 2.27 |
06:47 UTC 7 Feb 2020 | MiRS | 0.11 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 2.49 | 8.50 | 2.10 |
07:54 UTC 7 Feb 2020 | GPROF | 0.04 | 0.73 | 0.20 | 0.66 | 1.31 | 0.36 |
06:59 UTC 13 Apr 2020 | MiRS | 8.48 | 17.20 | 1.17 | 11.81 | 25.48 | 4.57 |
07:40 UTC 13 Apr 2020 | GPROF | 6.27 | 53.28 | 5.03 | 14.18 | 35.64 | 7.97 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Miller, D.; Arulraj, M.; Ferraro, R.; Grassotti, C.; Kuligowski, B.; Liu, S.; Petkovic, V.; Wu, S.; Xie, P. A Study of Two Impactful Heavy Rainfall Events in the Southern Appalachian Mountains during Early 2020, Part II; Regional Overview, Rainfall Evolution, and Satellite QPE Utility. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2500. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132500
Miller D, Arulraj M, Ferraro R, Grassotti C, Kuligowski B, Liu S, Petkovic V, Wu S, Xie P. A Study of Two Impactful Heavy Rainfall Events in the Southern Appalachian Mountains during Early 2020, Part II; Regional Overview, Rainfall Evolution, and Satellite QPE Utility. Remote Sensing. 2021; 13(13):2500. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132500
Chicago/Turabian StyleMiller, Douglas, Malarvizhi Arulraj, Ralph Ferraro, Christopher Grassotti, Bob Kuligowski, Shuyan Liu, Veljko Petkovic, Shaorong Wu, and Pingping Xie. 2021. "A Study of Two Impactful Heavy Rainfall Events in the Southern Appalachian Mountains during Early 2020, Part II; Regional Overview, Rainfall Evolution, and Satellite QPE Utility" Remote Sensing 13, no. 13: 2500. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13132500