Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Ruby Leung

Publications and source records attributed to Ruby Leung.

Global Droughts Connected By Linkages Between Drought Hubs

Quantifying the spatial and interconnected structure of regional to continental scale droughts is one of the unsolved global hydrology problems, which is important for understanding the looming risk of mega-scale droughts and the resulting water and food scarcity and their cascading impact on the worldwide economy. Using a Complex Network analysis, this study explores the topological characteristics of global drought events based on the self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index. Event Synchronization is used to measure the strength of association between the onset of droughts at different spatial locations within the time lag of 1-3 months. The network coefficients derived from the synchronization network indicate a highly heterogeneous connectivity structure underlying global drought events. Drought hotspot regions such as Southern Europe, Northeast Brazil, Australia, and Northwest USA behave as drought hubs that synchronize regionally and with other hubs at inter-continental or even inter-hemispheric scale. This observed affinity among drought hubs is equivalent to the ‘rich-club phenomenon’ in Network Theory, where ‘rich’ nodes (here, drought hubs) are tightly interconnected to form a club, implicating the possibility of simultaneous large-scale droughts over multiple continents.

Drought↗

Modeling the smoky troposphere of the southeast Atlantic: a comparison to ORACLES airborne observations from September of 2016

In the southeast Atlantic, well-defined smoke plumes from Africa advect over marine boundary layer cloud decks; both are most extensive around September, when most of the smoke resides in the free troposphere. A framework is put forth for evaluating the performance of a range of global and regional atmospheric composition models against observations made during the NASA ORACLES (ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS) airborne mission in September 2016. A strength of the comparison is a focus on the spatial distribution of a wider range of aerosol composition and optical properties than has been done previously. The sparse airborne observations are aggregated into approximately 2° grid boxes and into three vertical layers: 3–6 km, the layer from cloud top to 3 km, and the cloud-topped marine boundary layer. Simulated aerosol extensive properties suggest that the flight-day observations are reasonably representative of the regional monthly average, with systematic deviations of 30 % or less. Evaluation against observations indicates that all models have strengths and weaknesses, and there is no single model that is superior to all the others in all metrics evaluated. Whereas all six models typically place the top of the smoke layer within 0–500 m of the airborne lidar observations, the models tend to place the smoke layer bottom 300–1400 m lower than the observations. A spatial pattern emerges, in which most models underestimate the mean of most smoke quantities (black carbon, extinction, carbon monoxide) on the diagonal corridor between 16° S, 6° E, and 10° S, 0° E, in the 3–6 km layer, and overestimate them further south, closer to the coast, where less aerosol is present. Model representations of the above-cloud aerosol optical depth differ more widely. Most models overestimate the organic aerosol mass concentrations relative to those of black carbon, and with less skill, indicating model uncertainties in secondary organic aerosol processes. Regional-mean free-tropospheric model ambient single scattering albedos vary widely, between 0.83 and 0.93 compared with in situ dry measurements centered at 0.86, despite minimal impact of humidification on particulate scattering. The modeled ratios of the particulate extinction to the sum of the black carbon and organic aerosol mass concentrations (a mass extinction efficiency proxy) are typically too low and vary too little spatially, with significant inter-model differences. Most models overestimate the carbonaceous mass within the offshore boundary layer. Overall, the diversity in the model biases suggests that different model processes are responsible. The wide range of model optical properties requires further scrutiny because of their importance for radiative effect estimates.

Yohei Shinozuka↗

North American Extreme Precipitation Events and Related Large-Scale Meteorological Patterns: a Review of Statistical Methods, Dynamics, Modeling, and Trends

This paper surveys the current state of knowledge regarding Large-Scale Meteorological Patterns (LSMPs) associated with short-duration (less than one week) extreme precipitation events over North America. In contrast to teleconnections, which are typically defined based on the characteristic spatial variations of a meteorological field or on the remote circulation response to a known forcing, LSMPs are defined relative to the occurrence of a specific phenomenon—here, extreme precipitation—and with an emphasis on the synoptic scales that have a primary influence in individual events, have medium-range weather predictability, and are well-resolved in both weather and climate models. For the LSMP relationship with extreme precipitation, we consider the previous literature with respect to definitions and data, dynamical mechanisms, model representation, and climate change trends. There is considerable uncertainty in identifying extremes based on existing observational precipitation data and some limitations in analyzing the associated LSMPs in reanalysis data. Many different definitions of “extreme” are in use, making it difficult to directly compare different studies. Dynamically, several types of meteorological systems—extratropical cyclones, tropical cyclones, mesoscale convective systems, and mesohighs—and several mechanisms—fronts, atmospheric rivers, and orographic ascent—have been shown to be important aspects of extreme precipitation LSMPs. The extreme precipitation is often realized through mesoscale processes organized, enhanced, or triggered by the LSMP. Understanding of model representation, trends, and projections for LSMPs is at an early stage, although some 4 promising analysis techniques have been identified and the LSMP perspective is useful for evaluating model dynamics.

Mathew Barlow↗