Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 1161–1184 | Cite as

Uncertainty and feasibility of dynamical downscaling for modeling tropical cyclones for storm surge simulation

  • Zhaoqing Yang
  • Sourav Taraphdar
  • Taiping Wang
  • L. Ruby Leung
  • Molly Grear
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper presents a modeling study conducted to evaluate the uncertainty of a regional model in simulating hurricane wind and pressure fields, and the feasibility of driving coastal storm surge simulation using an ensemble of region model outputs produced by 18 combinations of 3 convection schemes and 6 microphysics parameterizations, using Hurricane Katrina as a test case. Simulated wind and pressure fields were compared to observed H*Wind data for Hurricane Katrina, and simulated storm surge was compared to observed high-water marks on the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The ensemble modeling analysis demonstrated that the regional model was able to reproduce the characteristics of Hurricane Katrina with reasonable accuracy and can be used to drive the coastal ocean model for simulating coastal storm surge. Results indicated that the regional model is sensitive to both convection and microphysics parameterizations that simulate moist processes closely linked to the tropical cyclone dynamics that influence hurricane development and intensification. The Zhang and McFarlane (ZM) convection scheme and the Lim and Hong (WDM6) microphysics parameterization are the most skillful in simulating Hurricane Katrina maximum wind speed and central pressure, among the three convection and the six microphysics parameterizations. Error statistics of simulated maximum water levels were calculated for a baseline simulation with H*Wind forcing and the 18 ensemble simulations driven by the regional model outputs. The storm surge model produced the overall best results in simulating the maximum water levels using wind and pressure fields generated with the ZM convection scheme and the WDM6 microphysics parameterization.

Keywords

Hurricane Storm surge Coastal modeling Convection and microphysics parameterization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Biological and Environmental Research as part of the Integrated Assessment Research program. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated by Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.

References

  1. Arbizu-Barrena C, Pozo-Vazquez D, Ruiz-Arias JA, Tovar-Pescador J (2015) Macroscopic cloud properties in the WRF NWP model: an assessment using sky camera and ceilometer data. J Geophys Res Atmos 120Google Scholar
  2. Bhaskaran PK, Nayak S, Bonthu SR, Murty PLN, Sen D (2013) Performance and validation of a coupled parallel ADCIRC–SWAN model for THANE cyclone in the Bay of Bengal. Environ Fluid Mech 13:601–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blake ES, Landsea CW, Gibney EJ (2011) The deadliest, costliest, and most intense united states tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2010 (and other frequently requested hurricane facts). NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/nws-nhc-6.pdf
  4. Camargo SJ (2013) Global and regional aspects of tropical cyclone activity in the CMIP5 models. J Clim 26:9880–9902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardone VJ, Cox AT (2009) Tropical cyclone wind field forcing for surge models: critical issues and sensitivities. Nat Hazards 51:29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chavas DR, Lin N, Emanuel K (2015) A model for the complete radial structure of the tropical cyclone wind field. Part I: comparison with observed structure*. J Atmos Sci 72:3647–3662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen C, Liu H, Beardsley RC (2003) An unstructured grid, finite-volume, three-dimensional, primitive equations ocean model: application to coastal ocean and estuaries. J Geophys Res 20:28Google Scholar
  8. Chen CS, Beardsley RC, Luettich RA, Westerink JJ, Wang H, Perrie W, Xu QC, Donahue AS, Qi JH, Lin HC, Zhao LZ, Kerr PC, Meng YQ, Toulany B (2013) Extratropical storm inundation testbed: intermodel comparisons in Scituate, Massachusetts. J Geophys Res Oceans 118:5054–5073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colle BA (2003) Numerical Simulations of the extratropical transition of Floyd (1999): structural evolution and responsible mechanisms for the heavy rainfall over the northeast United States. Mon Weather Rev 131:2905–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawson C, Kubatko EJ, Westerink JJ, Trahan C, Mirabito C, Michoski C, Panda N (2011) Discontinuous Galerkin methods for modeling Hurricane storm surge. Adv Water Resour 34:1165–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deng LP, McCabe MF, Stenchikov G, Evans JP, Kucera PA (2015) Simulation of flash-flood-producing storm events in Saudi Arabia using the weather research and forecasting model. J Hydrometeorol 16:615–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietrich JC, Bunya S, Westerink JJ, Ebersole BA, Smith JM, Atkinson JH, Jensen R, Resio DT, Luettich RA, Dawson C, Cardone VJ, Cox AT, Powell MD, Westerink HJ, Roberts HJ (2010) A high-resolution coupled riverine flow, tide, wind, wind wave, and storm surge model for southern Louisiana and Mississippi. Part II: synoptic description and analysis of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Mon Weather Rev 138:378–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dudhia J, Hong S-Y, Lim K-S (2008) A new method for representing mixed-phase particle fall speeds in bulk microphysics parameterizations. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 86A:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FEMA (2006) Final coastal and riverine high water mark collection for Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi. FEMA-1604-DR-MS, Task Orders 413 and 420. March 14, 2006. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/hazard/flood/recoverydata/katrina/katrina_ms_hwm_public.pdf
  15. Ferreira CM, Irish JL, Olivera F (2014) Quantifying the potential impact of land cover changes due to sea-level rise on storm surge on lower Texas coast bays. Coast Eng 94:102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fu D, Li PY, Fu G (2015) An observational and modeling study of extratropical transition of Hurricane Sandy in 2012. J Ocean Univ China 14:783–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gornitz V (1991) Global coastal hazards from future sea-level rise. Global Planet Change 89:379–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green BW, Zhang FQ (2014) Sensitivity of tropical cyclone simulations to parametric uncertainties in air–sea fluxes and implications for parameter estimation. Mon Weather Rev 142:2290–2308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grell G, Dudhia J, Stauffer DR (1993) A description of the fifth generation Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR Tech. Note. NCAR/TN-3981IA, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, 107 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Holland GJ (1980) An analytic model of the wind and pressure profiles in hurricanes. Mon Weather Rev 108:1212–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hong SY, Dudhia J, Chen SH (2004) A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds and precipitation. Mon Weather Rev 132:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houston SH, Shaffer WA, Powell MD, Chen J (1999) Comparisons of HRD and SLOSH surface wind fields in hurricanes: implications for storm surge modeling. Weather Forecast 14:671–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu KL, Chen Q, Kimball SK (2012) Consistency in hurricane surface wind forecasting: an improved parametric model. Nat Hazards 61:1029–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang W, Hagen SC, Bacopoulos P, Teng F (2014) Sea-level rise effects on hurricane-induced salinity transport in Apalachicola Bay. J Coastal Res. doi: 10.2112/SI68-007.1 Google Scholar
  25. Islam T, Srivastava PK, Rico-Ramirez MA, Dai Q, Gupta M, Singh SK (2015) Tracking a tropical cyclone through WRF–ARW simulation and sensitivity of model physics. Nat Hazards 76:1473–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakobsen F, Madsen H (2004) Comparison and further development of parametric tropical cyclone models for storm surge modelling. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 92:375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeong CK, Panchang V, Demirbilek Z (2012) Parametric adjustments to the rankine vortex wind model for gulf of Mexico hurricanes. J Offshore Mech Arct Eng 134:041102. doi: 10.1115/1.4006148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kain JS, Fritsch JM (1990) A one-dimensional entraining detraining plume model and its application in convective parameterization. J Atmos Sci 47:2784–2802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kain JS, Fritsch JM (1993) Convective parameterization for mesoscale models: the Kain-Fritcsh scheme. In: Emanuel KA, Raymond DJ (eds) The representation of cumulus convection in numerical models. American Meteorlogical SocietyGoogle Scholar
  30. Kanase RD, Mukhopadhyay P, Salvekar PS (2015) Understanding the role of cloud and convective processes in simulating the weaker tropical cyclones over indian seas. Pure Appl Geophys 172:1751–1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kasheta TE, Chang CB (2002) Development of a hurricane boundary-layer wind model. Meteorol Atmos Phys 79:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kerr PC, Donahue AS, Westerink JJ, Luettich RA, Zheng LY, Weisberg RH, Huang Y, Wang HV, Teng Y, Forrest DR, Roland A, Haase AT, Kramer AW, Taylor AA, Rhome JR, Feyen JC, Signell RP, Hanson JL, Hope ME, Estes RM, Dominguez RA, Dunbar RP, Semeraro LN, Westerink HJ, Kennedy AB, Smith JM, Powell MD, Cardone VJ, Cox AT (2013) US IOOS coastal and ocean modeling testbed: inter-model evaluation of tides, waves, and hurricane surge in the Gulf of Mexico. J Geophys Res Oceans 118:5129–5172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krishnamurti TN, Pattnaik S, Biswas MK, Bensman E, Kramer M, Surgi N, Kumar TSVV (2010) Hurricane forecasts with a mesoscale suite of models. Tellus Ser Dyn Meteorol Oceanogr 62:633–646Google Scholar
  34. Kuiry SN, Ding Y, Wang SSY (2014) Numerical simulations of morphological changes in barrier islands induced by storm surges and waves using a supercritical flow model. Front Struct Civil Eng 8:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Landsea CW (1993) A climatology of intense (or major) Atlantic hurricanes. Mon Weather Rev 121:1703–1713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li Z, Pu ZX (2014) Numerical Simulations of the Genesis of Typhoon Nuri (2008): sensitivity to initial conditions and implications for the roles of intense convection and moisture conditions. Weather Forecast 29:1402–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lim KSS, Hong SY (2010) Development of an effective double-moment cloud microphysics scheme with prognostic cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) for weather and climate models. Mon Weather Rev 138:1587–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin N, Chavas D (2012) On hurricane parametric wind and applications in storm surge modeling. J Geophys Res Atmos 117Google Scholar
  39. Lin YL, Colle BA (2011) A new bulk microphysical scheme that includes riming intensity and temperature-dependent ice characteristics. Mon Weather Rev 139:1013–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lin Y-L, Farley R, Orville HD (1983) Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a cloud model. J Clim Appl Meteorol 22:1065–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lin N, Smith JA, Villarini G, Marchok TP, Baeck ML (2010) modeling extreme rainfall, winds, and surge from Hurricane Isabel (2003). Weather Forecast 25:1342–1361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu YB, Zhang DL, Yau MK (1997) Multiscale numerical study of Hurricane Andrew (1992). 1. Explicit simulation and verification. Mon Weather Rev 125:3073–3093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lynn BH, Healy R, Druyan LM (2009) Investigation of Hurricane Katrina characteristics for future, warmer climates. Clim Res 39:75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martino CD, Cheung KF, Phadke AC, Houston SH (2001) Simulation of hurricane waves with parametric wind fields. In: Conference proceedings of oceans 2001 MTS/IEEE: an ocean odyssey, vols 1–4, pp 1323–1330Google Scholar
  45. McFarquhar GM, Zhang HN, Heymsfield G, Hood R, Dudhia J, Halverson JB, Marks F (2006) Factors affecting the evolution of Hurricane Erin (2001) and the distributions of hydrometeors: role of microphysical processes. J Atmos Sci 63:127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morrison H, Gettelman A (2008) A new two-moment bulk stratiform cloud microphysics scheme in the community atmosphere model, version 3 (CAM3). Part I: description and numerical tests. J Clim 21:3642–3659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morrison H, Pinto JO (2005) Mesoscale modeling of spring time arctic mixed-phase clouds using a new two-moment bulk microphysics scheme. J Atmos Sci 62:3683–3704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morrison H, Pinto JO (2006) Intercomparison of bulk cloud microphysics schemes in mesoscale simulations of springtime arctic mixed-phase stratiform clouds. Mon Weather Rev 134:1880–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morrison H, Thompson G, Tatarskii V (2009) Impact of cloud microphysics on the development of trailing stratiform precipitation in a simulated squall line: comparison of one- and two-moment schemes. Mon Weather Rev 137:991–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mukhopadhyay P, Taraphdar S, Goswami BN (2011) Influence of moist processes on track and intensity forecast of cyclones over the north Indian Ocean. J Geophys Res Atmo 116:D05116. doi: 10.1029/2010JD014700 Google Scholar
  51. Neale RB, Richter JH, Jochum M (2008) The impact of convection on ENSO: from a delayed oscillator to a series of events. J Clim 21:5904–5924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nordeng TE (1995) Extended versions of the convective parameterization scheme at ECMWF and their impact on the mean and transient activity of the model in the Tropics. In: ECMWF research department technical memorandum, vol 206Google Scholar
  53. Oh SM, Moon IJ (2013) Typhoon and storm surge intensity changes in a warming climate around the Korean Peninsula. Nat Hazards 66:1405–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olabarrieta M, Warner JC, Armstrong B, Zambon JB, He RY (2012) Ocean-atmosphere dynamics during Hurricane Ida and Nor’Ida: an application of the coupled ocean-atmosphere-wave-sediment transport (COAWST) modeling system. Ocean Model 43–44:112–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pielke RA, Gratz J, Landsea CW, Collins D, Saunders M, Musulin R (2008) Normalized Hurricane damage in the United States: 1900–2005. Nat Hazards Rev 9:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Powell MD, Houston SH, Amat LR, Morisseau-Leroy N (1998) The HRD real-time hurricane wind analysis system. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 77–8:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rasmussen R, Liu CH, Ikeda K, Gochis D, Yates D, Chen F, Tewari M, Barlage M, Dudhia J, Yu W, Miller K, Arsenault K, Grubisic V, Thompson G, Gutmann E (2011) High-resolution coupled climate runoff simulations of seasonal snowfall over Colorado: a process study of current and warmer climate. J Clim 24:3015–3048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reynolds RW, Smith TM, Liu C, Chelton DB, Casey KS, Schlax MG (2007) Daily high-resolution-blended analyses for sea surface temperature. J Clim 20:5473–5496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Richter JH, Rasch PJ (2008) Effects of convective momentum transport on the atmospheric circulation in the community atmosphere model, version 3. J Clim 21:1487–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rutledge SA, Hobbs PV (1983) The mesoscale and microscale structure and organization of clouds and precipitation in midlatitude cyclones. VIII: a model for the ‘‘seeder-feeder’’ process in warm-frontal rainbands. J Atmos Sci 40:1185–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Salathe EP, Hamlet AF, Mass CF, Lee SY, Stumbaugh M, Steed R (2014) Estimates of twenty-first-century flood risk in the pacific northwest based on regional climate model simulations. J Hydrometeorol 15:1881–1899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shapiro LJ (1983) The asymmetric boundary-layer flow under a translating Hurricane. J Atmos Sci 40:1984–1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Duda MG, Huang X, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3, NCAR Tech. Note, NCAR/TN-475+STR. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, 8 pp. http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/docs/arw_v3.pdf
  64. Tao W-K, Simpson JS, McCumber M (1989) An ice-water saturation adjustment. Mon Weather Rev 117:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tao WK, Shi JJ, Chen SYS, Lang S, Lin PL, Hong SY, Peters-Lidard C, Hou A (2011) The impact of microphysical schemes on hurricane intensity and track. Asia Pac J Atmos Sci 47:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taraphdar S, Mukhopadhyay P, Leung RL, Zhang F, Abhilash S, Goswami BN (2014) The role of moist processes in the intrinsic predictability of Indian Ocean cyclones. J Geophys Res Atmos 119:8032–8048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tasnim KM, Shibayama T, Esteban M, Takagi H, Ohira K, Nakamura R (2015) Field observation and numerical simulation of past and future storm surges in the Bay of Bengal: case study of cyclone Nargis. Nat Hazards 75:1619–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thompson EF, Cardone VJ (1996) Practical modeling of hurricane surface wind fields. J Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng ASCE 122:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thompson G, Rasmussen RM, Manning K (2004) Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part I: description and sensitivity analysis. Mon Weather Rev 132:519–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thompson Gregory, Field PR, Rasmussen RM, Hall WD (2008) Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved Bulk Microphysics scheme. Part II: implementation of a new snow parameterization. Mon Weather Rev 136:5095–5115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tiedtke M (1989) A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulus parameterization in large-scale models. Mon Weather Rev 117:1779–1800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Trenberth KE, Fasullo J (2008) Energy budgets of Atlantic hurricanes and changes from 1970. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 9Google Scholar
  73. U.S. DOE (2009) Comparing the Impacts of the 2005 and 2008 Hurricanes on U.S. Energy Infrastructure. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. February 2009. https://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/HurricaneComp0508r2.pdf
  74. Vickery PJ, Masters FJ, Powell MD, Wadhera D (2009a) Hurricane hazard modeling: the past, present, and future. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 97:392–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Vickery PJ, Wadhera D, Powell MD, Chen YZ (2009b) A hurricane boundary layer and wind field model for use in engineering applications. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 48:381–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vizy EK, Cook KH (2009) Tropical storm development from african easterly waves in the eastern Atlantic: a comparison of two successive waves using a regional model as part of NASA AMMA 2006. J Atmos Sci 66:3313–3334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walton DB, Sun FP, Hall A, Capps S (2015) A hybrid dynamical-statistical downscaling technique. Part I: development and validation of the technique. J Clim 28:4597–4617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wang Y, Sen OL, Wang B (2003) A highly resolved regional climate model (IPRC-RegCM) and its simulation of the 1998 severe precipitation event over China. Part I: model description and verification of simulation. J Clim 16:1721–1738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang Y, Xie S-P, Hu H-M, Wang B (2004) Regional model simulations of marine boundary layer clouds over the south-east Pacific off South America. Part I: control experiment. Mon Weather Rev 132:274–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang Y, Zhou L, Hamilton KP (2007) Effect of convective entrainment/detrainment on simulation of tropical precipitation diurnal cycle. Mon Weather Rev 135:567–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Warner JC, Armstrong B, He RY, Zambon JB (2010) Development of a coupled ocean-atmosphere-wave-sediment transport (COAWST) modeling system. Ocean Model 35:230–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Weisberg RH, Zheng LY (2008) Hurricane storm surge simulations comparing three-dimensional with two-dimensional formulations based on an Ivan-like storm over the Tampa Bay, Florida region. J Geophys Res Oceans 113Google Scholar
  83. Willoughby HE, Darling RWR, Rahn ME (2006) Parametric representation of the primary hurricane vortex. Part II: a new family of sectionally continuous profiles. Mon Weather Rev 134:1102–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Xu SD, Huang WR, Zhang GP, Gao F, Li XM (2014) Integrating Monte Carlo and hydrodynamic models for estimating extreme water levels by storm surge in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Nat Hazards 71:703–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Xue PF, Chen CS, Qi JH, Beardsley RC, Tian RC, Zhao LZ, Lin HC (2014) Mechanism studies of seasonal variability of dissolved oxygen in Mass Bay: a multi-scale FVCOM/UG-RCA application. J Mar Syst 131:102–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yang ZQ, Wang TP, Leung R, Hibbard K, Janetos T, Kraucunas I, Rice J, Preston B, Wilbanks T (2014) A modeling study of coastal inundation induced by storm surge, sea-level rise, and subsidence in the Gulf of Mexico. Nat Hazards 71:1771–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yeh KS, Zhang XJ, Gopalakrishnan S, Aberson S, Rogers R, Marks F, Atlas R (2012) Performance of the experimental HWRF in the 2008 Hurricane Season. Nat Hazards 63:1439–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhang GJ, Mcfarlane NA (1995) Sensitivity of Climate Simulations to the Parameterization of Cumulus Convection in the Canadian Climate Center General-Circulation model. Atmos Ocean 33:407–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhang JA, Uhlhorn EW (2012) Hurricane sea surface inflow angle and an observation-based parametric model. Mon Weather Rev 140:3587–3605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zhao L, Wang SY, Jin J, Clark AJ (2015) Weather Research and Forecasting model simulations of a rare springtime bow echo near the Great Salt Lake, USA. Meteorol Appl 22:301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhaoqing Yang
    • 1
  • Sourav Taraphdar
    • 2
    • 3
  • Taiping Wang
    • 1
  • L. Ruby Leung
    • 3
  • Molly Grear
    • 4
  1. 1.Marine Sciences LaboratoryPacific Northwest National LaboratorySeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of MeteorologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change DivisionPacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA
  4. 4.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations