4.4 Article

The modified Palmer drought severity index based on the NCEP North American Regional Reanalysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY
卷 45, 期 10, 页码 1362-1375

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JAM2402.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 32-km high-resolution modified Palmer drought severity index (MPDSI) based on the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) North American Regional Reanalysis (RR) from 1979 to 2004 is presented. The assumptions of Palmer, such as the water balance equation, the difference between observed precipitation and the climatologically expected precipitation over the maximum conditions, and the changes of the index as a function of the current index, are preserved. Many deficiencies of the original PDSI are eliminated by taking fields directly from the RR or by making better estimates. For example, fields such as potential evapotranspiration, evaporation, runoff, total soil moisture, and soil moisture change in a given month are obtained directly from the RR. The potential recharge is defined as the total soil moisture needed to reach the maximum total soil moisture at each grid point for each calendar month. The potential precipitation is defined as the maximum precipitation at each grid point for a given calendar month. The underground volumetric soil moisture includes both frozen and liquid form. Therefore, the contribution of snowmelt is taken into account inexplicitly. The questionable assumptions of two-layer soil model and the available soil moisture capacity are no longer needed. Overall, the MPDSI, when averaged over a large area and long time, often resembles the traditional PDSI based on the Palmer formula and the climate-division data. The MPDSI obeys Gaussian distribution, and so it can also be used to assess the potential for floods. Together with a consistent suite of soil moisture, surface energy, and atmospheric terms from the RR, the MPDSI can be used to monitor and diagnose drought and floods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据