It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Although rare, atmospheric rivers substantially influence the interannual variability of Antarctic surface mass balance. Here we use MERRA-2 reanalysis to identify characteristics unique to atmospheric river environments by comparing (1) Analog (environments that feature high-low pressure couplets, similar to Atmospheric River environments, but no Atmospheric River), (2) Atmospheric River, and (3) Top Atmospheric River (highest precipitation) timesteps during 1980–2019 around Antarctica. We find significant differences between Atmospheric River and Analog environments including more intense and poleward-shifted mid-tropospheric geopotential height couplets as well as larger atmospheric moisture anomalies. We find similar significant enhancement in synoptic-scale dynamic drivers of Top Atmospheric Rivers compared to all Atmospheric River environments, but no significant difference in local integrated water vapor anomalies. Instead, our results highlight the importance of large-scale dynamic drivers during Top Atmospheric River timesteps, including amplified Rossby waves excited by tropical convection.
The precipitation intensity of Antarctic Atmospheric Rivers is governed by synoptic and planetary-scale dynamic processes, including teleconnections with amplified Rossby waves, suggests an analysis of a 40-year reanalysis record.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Winters, Andrew C. 1
; Pohl, Benjamin 2
; Favier, Vincent 3
; Wille, Jonathan D. 4 ; Clem, Kyle R. 5
1 University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Boulder, USA (GRID:grid.266190.a) (ISNI:0000 0000 9621 4564)
2 CNRS / Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Biogéosciences, Dijon, France (GRID:grid.462242.4) (ISNI:0000 0004 0417 3208)
3 CNRS/UGA/IRD/G-INP, Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement, Saint Martin d’Hères, France (GRID:grid.503237.0)
4 CNRS/UGA/IRD/G-INP, Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement, Saint Martin d’Hères, France (GRID:grid.503237.0); ETH Zurich, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Zurich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5801.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2156 2780)
5 Victoria University of Wellington, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Wellington, New Zealand (GRID:grid.267827.e) (ISNI:0000 0001 2292 3111)




