Two Different Methods for Flash Drought Identification: Comparison of Their Strengths and Limitations
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

The NOAA IR serves as an archival repository of NOAA-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other information authored or co-authored by NOAA or funded partners. As a repository, the NOAA IR retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i

Two Different Methods for Flash Drought Identification: Comparison of Their Strengths and Limitations

Filetype[PDF-3.24 MB]


Details You May Also Like

Details:

  • Journal Title:
    Journal of Hydrometeorology
  • Personal Author:
  • NOAA Program & Office:
    CIMSS (Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies)
  • Description:
    Flash droughts are extreme phenomena that have been identified using two different approaches. The first approach identifies these events based on unusually rapid intensification rates, whereas the second approach implicitly identifies short-term features. This latter approach classifies flash droughts into two types, namely, precipitation deficit and heat wave flash droughts (denoted as PDFD and HWFD). In this study, we evaluate these two approaches over the Yellow River basin (YRB) to determine which approach provides more accurate information about flash droughts and why. Based on the concept of intensification rate, a new quantitative flash drought identification method focused on soil moisture depletion during the onset–development phase is proposed. Its performance was evaluated by comparing the onset time and spatial dynamics of the identified flash droughts with PDFD and HWFD events identified using the second approach. The results show that the rapid-intensification approach is better able to capture the continuous evolution of a flash drought. Since the approach for identifying PDFD and HWFD events does not consider changes in soil moisture with time, it cannot ensure that the events exhibit rapid intensification, nor can it effectively capture flash droughts’ onset. Evaluation of the results showed that the chosen hydrometeorological variables and corresponding thresholds, particularly that of temperature, are the main reasons for the poor performance of the PDFD and HWFD identification approach. This study promotes a deeper understanding of flash droughts that is beneficial for drought monitoring, early warning, and mitigation.
  • Source:
    Journal of Hydrometeorology, 21(4), 691-704
  • DOI:
  • ISSN:
    1525-755X;1525-7541;
  • Format:
    pdf
  • Publisher:
    American Meteorological Society
  • Document Type:
    Journal Article
  • Rights Information:
    Other
  • Compliance:
    Library
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

  • No Additional Files
More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at repository.library.noaa.gov

Version 3.27.1