The Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP) is an international collaborative effort to understand and quantify the uncertainties in atmospheric river (AR) science based on detection algorithm alone. Currently, there are many AR identification and tracking algorithms in the literature with a wide range of techniques and conclusions. ARTMIP strives to provide the community with information on different methodologies and provide guidance on the most appropriate algorithm for a given science question or region of interest. All ARTMIP participants will implement their detection algorithms on a specified common dataset for a defined period of time. The project is divided into two phases: Tier 1 will utilize the Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2) reanalysis from January 1980 to June 2017 and will be used as a baseline for all subsequent comparisons. Participation in Tier 1 is required. Tier 2 will be optional and include sensitivity studies designed around specific science questions, such as reanalysis uncertainty and climate change. High-resolution reanalysis and/or model output will be used wherever possible. Proposed metrics include AR frequency, duration, intensity, and precipitation attributable to ARs. Here, we present the ARTMIP experimental design, timeline, project requirements, and a brief description of the variety of methodologies in the current literature. We also present results from our 1-month “proof-of-concept” trial run designed to illustrate the utility and feasibility of the ARTMIP project.

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are now widely known for their association with high‐impact weather events and long‐term water supply in many regions. Researchers within the scientific community have developed numerous methods to identify and track of ARs—a necessary step for analyses on gridded data sets, and objective attribution of impacts to ARs. These different methods have been developed to answer specific research questions and hence use different criteria (e.g., geometry, threshold values of key variables, and time dependence). Furthermore, these methods are often employed using different reanalysis data sets, time periods, and regions of interest. The goal of the Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP) is to understand and quantify uncertainties in AR science that arise due to differences in these methods. This paper presents results for key AR‐related metrics based on 20+ different AR identification and tracking methods applied to Modern‐Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications Version 2 reanalysis data from January 1980 through June 2017. We show that AR frequency, duration, and seasonality exhibit a wide range of results, while the meridional distribution of these metrics along selected coastal (but not interior) transects are quite similar across methods. Furthermore, methods are grouped into criteria‐based clusters, within which the range of results is reduced. AR case studies and an evaluation of individual method deviation from an all‐method mean highlight advantages/disadvantages of certain approaches. For example, methods with less (more) restrictive criteria identify more (less) ARs and AR‐related impacts. Finally, this paper concludes with a discussion and recommendations for those conducting AR‐related research to consider.

Observations indicate that over the last few decades there has been a statistically significant increase in precipitation in the northeastern United States and that this can be attributed to an increase in precipitation associated with extreme precipitation events. Here a state-of-the-art atmospheric reanalysis is used to examine such events in detail. Daily extreme precipitation events defined at the 75th and 95th percentile from gridded gauge observations are identified for a selected region within the Northeast. Atmospheric variables from the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, version 2 (MERRA-2), are then composited during these events to illustrate the time evolution of associated synoptic structures, with a focus on vertically integrated water vapor fluxes, sea level pressure, and 500-hPa heights. Anomalies of these fields move into the region from the northwest, with stronger anomalies present in the 95th percentile case. Although previous studies show tropical cyclones are responsible for the most intense extreme precipitation events, only 10% of the events in this study are caused by tropical cyclones. On the other hand, extreme events resulting from cutoff low pressure systems have increased. The time period of the study was divided in half to determine how the mean composite has changed over time. An arc of lower sea level pressure along the East Coast and a change in the vertical profile of equivalent potential temperature suggest a possible increase in the frequency or intensity of synoptic-scale baroclinic disturbances.

The Goddard Chemistry Aerosol Radiation and Transport (GOCART) model, which controls the sources, sinks, and chemistry of aerosols within the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS), recently underwent a major refactoring and update, including a revision of the emissions datasets and the addition of brown carbon. A 4-year benchmark simulation utilizing the new version of the model code, termed GOCART Second Generation (GOCART-2G) and coupled to the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) model, was evaluated using in situ and spaceborne measurements to develop a baseline and prioritize future development. A comparison of simulated aerosol optical depth between GOCART-2G and MODIS retrievals indicates the model captures the overall spatial pattern and seasonal cycle of aerosol optical depth but overestimates aerosol extinction over dusty regions and underestimates aerosol extinction over Northern Hemisphere boreal forests, requiring further investigation and tuning of emissions. This MODIS-based analysis is corroborated by comparisons to MISR and selected AERONET stations; however, discrepancies between the Aqua and Terra satellites indicate there is a diurnal component to biases in aerosol optical depth over southern Asia and northern Africa. Despite the underestimate of aerosol optical depth in biomass burning regions in GEOS, there is an overestimate in the surface mass of organic carbon in the United States, especially during the summer months. Over Europe, GOCART-2G is unable to match the summertime peak in aerosol optical depth, opposing the observed late fall and early spring peaks in surface mass concentration. A comparison of the vertical profile of attenuated backscatter to observations from CALIPSO indicates the GEOS model is capable of capturing the vertical profile of aerosol; however, the mid-troposphere plumes of dust in the North Atlantic and smoke in the southeastern Atlantic are perhaps too low in altitude. The results presented highlight priorities for future development with GOCART-2G, including improvements for dust, biomass burning aerosols, and anthropogenic aerosols.

Extreme climate events are societally harmful and have increased in frequency and intensity in recent decades. Indices based on temperature and precipitation are a valuable way to quantify climate extremes. Certain indices are defined relative to percentiles, which are dependent on a climatological baseline period. In this study, indices computed using temperature and precipitation from the Modern Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 are calculated using percentiles from three baseline periods: 1981–2010, 1991–2020 and 1981–2020. Updating the baseline period from 1981 to 2010 to 1991–2020 leads to significant changes in the quantification of temperature and precipitation extremes over the United States over 1980–2021. Using the later baseline period indicates more cold extremes, fewer warm extremes, and fewer but more intense precipitation extremes throughout the US, with regional variation. Changing the baseline period can mislead the public and decision makers, potentially undermining the appropriate response to climate‐related health risks.