AMS PUBLICATIONS

DEFINING “ATMOSPHERIC RIVER”

How the Glossary of Meteorology Helped Resolve a Debate
F. Martin R alph, Michael D. Dettinger, Mary M. Cairns, Thomas J. Galarneau, and John Eylander

S
ince the term “atmospheric river” (AR) first ap- terms was modified to include broader interests
peared in modern scientific literature in the early and greater expertise than is typically found in the
1990s, it has generated debate about the mean- Scientific and Technological Activities Commission
ing of the concept. A common popular definition (STAC) committee experts. The chief editor has the
is something along the lines of a “river in the sky,” capability to form unique review teams and other
albeit as a river of water vapor rather than of liquid. methods determined on an individual term basis. It
This general concept has come into regular use in is this process that we describe that was unique for
the western United States and in some other regions the AR term development.
affected by ARs, partly due to its use by media, and The process originated from two key events in
due to the intuitive nature of the concept. However, 2015: the GoM received requests to include a defini-
over the last 20 years there have been varying per- tion of AR, and a workshop (briefly summarized by
spectives on the term in the technical community. Dettinger et al. 2015) brought together experts on
These perspectives range roughly from considering ARs, WCBs, and tropical moisture exports (TMEs)
it duplicative of preexisting concepts, such as the to openly discuss the relationships between these
warm conveyor belt (WCB), to arguments that the concepts. The workshop was held in June 2015
analogy to terrestrial rivers is inappropriate, to being at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and
a primary topic of focused research, applications, and was organized by the recently created Center for
usage by water managers. Western Weather and Water Extremes. Three sci-
Despite this debate, or possibly because of it, entific leaders, one for each subject (Heini Wernli
requests for the creation of a formal definition were on WCB, Harold Sodemann on TME, and Jason
submitted to the Glossary of Meteorology (GoM). After Cordeira on AR), were asked to provide their inde-
decades of debate regarding the term “atmospheric pendent perspectives on the relationship. Roughly
river,” it was an opportune time to develop a formal 25 people participated in the workshop, which
definition for the GoM. The purpose of this short included three seminar presentations by these
report is to describe a development process with topic leaders, as well as other presentations and
deep roots in community-wide feedback resulting in-depth discussions. The three topic leaders each
in the newly minted definition as it now appears in took a different approach to address the problem,
the GoM. Because of the national and international and yet each came to roughly the same conclusion.
interests in ARs, the typical review process for GoM They found that the AR, WCB, and TME concepts
are interrelated, but distinct from one another
in important ways. For example, ARs can form
AFFILIATIONS: R alph —Center for Western Weather and Wa- and exist without a TME or a WCB, but in other
ter Extremes, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of cases a TME can feed tropical moisture into an
California, San Diego, La Jolla, California; Dettinger—U.S. Geo- AR and a WCB can be the downwind terminus
logical Survey, Carson City, Nevada; Cairns*—Federal Aviation of an AR through rainout. The initial request for
Administration, San Diego, California; Galarneau —University of
the AR term was submitted to the GoM as a result
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Eylander—US Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Hanover, New Hampshire
of this first workshop.
*Retired Partly spurred on by the interest in a GoM defi-
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Mary Cairns, cairnsmm@gmail.com nition and by the success of the AR workshop in
2015, a panel discussion was held on the definition
DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0157.1
of the term at the First International Atmospheric
©2018 American Meteorological Society
For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright
Rivers Conference (IARC) in August 2016 (Ralph
information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy. et al. 2017). The IARC brought together more than
100 interested individuals from across the globe for

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY APRIL 2018 | 837

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/25/25 05:31 AM UTC
Schematic summary of the structure and strength of an atmospheric river based on dropsonde measurements
deployed from research aircraft across many atmospheric rivers and on corresponding reanalyses that provide
the plan-view context. Magnitudes of variables represent an average midlatitude atmospheric river. Average
width is based on atmospheric river boundaries defined by vertically integrated water vapor transport (IVT;
from surface to 300 hPa) lateral boundary threshold of 250 kg m –1 s –1. Depth corresponds to the altitude below
which 75% of IVT occurs. The total water vapor transport (a.k.a. flux) corresponds to the transport along an
atmospheric river, bounded laterally by the positions of IVT = 250 kg m –1 s –1 and vertically by the surface and
300 hPa. (a) Plan view including parent low pressure system and associated cold, warm, and warm-occluded
surface fronts. IVT is shown by color fill (magnitude; kg m –1 s –1) and direction in the core (white arrow). Verti-
cally integrated water vapor (IWV; cm) is contoured. A representative length scale is shown. The position of
the cross section shown in (b) is denoted by the dashed line A–A´. (b) Vertical cross-section perspective, in-
cluding the core of the water vapor transport in the atmospheric river (orange contours and color fill) and the
pre-cold-frontal low-level jet (LLJ), in the context of the jet–front system and tropopause. Water vapor mixing
ratio (green dotted lines; g kg –1) and cross-section-normal isotachs (blue contours; m s –1) are shown. [Figure
reproduced from Ralph et al. (2017b). Schematic prepared by F. M. Ralph, J. M. Cordeira, and P. J. Neiman and
adapted from Ralph et al. (2004), Cordeira et al. (2013), and others.]

four days to discuss AR dynamics, observations, im- To provide opportunities for community engage-
pacts, climate change implications, and applications. ment, the committee then organized two town hall
The international organizing committee provided meetings at prominent conferences to present the
the AR definition panel with a draft definition and draft definition and solicit feedback and input. The
a question about whether to retain the connection to first of these town hall meetings was at the AGU
extratropical cyclone–related dynamics, which had Fall Meeting in San Francisco in December 2016,
dominated the subject, or to broaden it to include and the second was at the AMS Annual Meeting
tropical and other conditions. The panelists presented in Seattle in January 2017. Each town hall included
diverse perspectives, and there was robust discussion several panelists who offered their comments on the
(Ralph et al. 2017). draft definition, and allowed roughly half the time
Shortly after IARC, the chief editor of GoM worked for questions and open discussion. The panelists
with AR experts to adopt a strategy to develop the (including at IARC) were M. Anderson, L. Bosart,
definition that included opportunities for meteoro- J. Cordeira, M. Dettinger, R. Leung, G. Magnusdot-
logical and hydrological community engagement. The tir, A. Ramos, L. Schick, R. Schumacher, D. Waliser,
strategy included the chairs of the AMS Mesoscale and R. Webb. From 70 to 100 people attended each
(Thomas Galarneau), Hydrology (John Eylander), and town hall, and open discussion took place. One
Water Resources (Mike Dettinger) STAC commit- outcome of these town halls was the clear preference
tees and was led by F. Martin Ralph. This committee to retain the extratropical dynamics connection
used input from the 2016 IARC, the AR workshop in the definition. Other recommendations were to
in 2015, and individual perspectives to create a draft keep the definition as short as possible and to leave
AR definition. specifications of how the boundaries of an AR are

838 | APRIL 2018

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/25/25 05:31 AM UTC
to be quantified open for future and
specialized developments. THE DEFINITION AS IT APPEARS IN
The committee then refined the THE GLOSSARY OF METEOROLOGY
definition and added schematic sum-
maries, including plan-view and verti- Atmospheric river–A long, narrow, and transient
cal cross-sectional perspectives based corridor of strong horizontal water vapor transport that
is typically associated with a low-level jet stream ahead
on previously published research and
of the cold front of an extratropical cyclone. The water
on a combination of airborne drop- vapor in atmospheric rivers is supplied by tropical and/or
sonde observations of ARs and reanal- extratropical moisture sources. Atmospheric rivers fre-
yses to provide synoptic-scale context. quently lead to heavy precipitation where they are forced
The final version of this, agreed upon upward—for example, by mountains or by ascent in the
by the four committee members (rep- warm conveyor belt. Horizontal water vapor transport
resenting atmospheric science and hy- in the midlatitudes occurs primarily in atmospheric rivers
and is focused in the lower troposphere. Atmospheric
drology), informed by roughly a dozen
rivers are the largest “rivers” of fresh water on Earth,
panelists, and considering input from transporting on average more than double the flow of the
more than 250 attendees of IARC and Amazon River.
the town hall meetings, has now been
included in the GoM.
While the process in the develop- for global studies. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 120, 12
ment of the GoM AR definition lasted more than 514–12 535, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024257.
a year and a half, the GoM review allowed for flex- Neiman, P. J., F. M. Ralph, G. A. Wick, J. D. Lundquist,
ibility in order to provide the best term definition. and M. D. Dettinger, 2008: Meteorological char-
The process was unique, as most GoM term reviews acteristics and overland precipitation impacts of
are not nearly as extensive as what was undertaken atmospheric rivers affecting the west coast of North
in this case. The GoM process will continue to fol- America based on eight years of SSM/I satellite
low the normal review procedures using the STAC observations. J. Hydrometeor., 9, 22–47, https://doi
committees while retaining the flexibility for special .org/10.1175/2007JHM855.1.
review in the future. Ralph, F. M., P. J. Neiman, and G. A. Wick, 2004:
Satellite and CALJET aircraft observations of at-
mospheric rivers over the eastern North Pacific
FOR FURTHER READING Ocean during the winter of 1997/98. Mon. Wea.
American Meteorological Society, 2017: Atmospheric Rev., 132, 1721–1745, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520
river. Glossary of Meteorology, http://glossary.ametsoc -0493(2004)132<1721:SACAOO>2.0.CO;2.
.org/wiki/Atmospheric_river. —, and Coauthors, 2017: Atmospheric rivers emerge
Cordeira, J. M., F. M. Ralph, and B. J. Moore, 2013: The as a global science and applications focus. Bull. Amer.
development and evolution of two atmospheric riv- Meteor. Soc., 98, 1969–1973, https://doi.org/10.1175
ers in proximity to western North Pacific tropical /BAMS-D-16-0262.1.
cyclones in October 2010. Mon. Wea. Rev., 141, 4234– —, and Coauthors, 2017b: Dropsonde observations
4255, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00019.1. of total water vapor transport within North Pacific
Dettinger, M., F. M. Ralph, and D. Lavers, 2015: Setting atmospheric rivers. J. Hydrometeor., 18, 2577–2596,
the stage for a global science of atmospheric rivers. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0036.1.
Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 96, https://doi Zhu, Y., and R. E. Newell, 1998: A proposed algorithm
.org/10.1029/2015EO038675. for moisture fluxes from atmospheric rivers. Mon.
Guan, B., and D. E. Waliser, 2015: Detection of atmospher- Wea. Rev., 126, 725–735, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520
ic rivers: Evaluation and application of an algorithm -0493(1998)126<0725:APAFMF>2.0.CO;2.

AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY APRIL 2018 | 839

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/25/25 05:31 AM UTC