2018
DOI: 10.1002/joc.5915
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the decadal predictability of the frequency of flood events across the U.S. Midwest

Abstract: Skilful predictions of the frequency of flood events over long lead times (e.g., from 1 to 10 years ahead) are essential for governments and institutions making near‐term flood risk plans. However, little is known about current flood prediction capabilities over annual to decadal timescales. Here we address this knowledge gap at 286 U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations across the U.S. Midwest using precipitation and temperature decadal predictions from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(62 reference statements)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Meanwhile, past studies (Gillies et al 2015, Gillies et al 2011 [10,11] have developed time series modeling to anticipate the GSL water level out to 5-10 years. Predictability of streamflow and water storage at decadal timescale was reported elsewhere, such as the Missouri River basin (Neri et al 2018;Wang et al 2014) [12,13]. Therefore, a compelling case can be made that the same multi-year forecast developed for the GSL water level could apply to the Colorado River WS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Meanwhile, past studies (Gillies et al 2015, Gillies et al 2011 [10,11] have developed time series modeling to anticipate the GSL water level out to 5-10 years. Predictability of streamflow and water storage at decadal timescale was reported elsewhere, such as the Missouri River basin (Neri et al 2018;Wang et al 2014) [12,13]. Therefore, a compelling case can be made that the same multi-year forecast developed for the GSL water level could apply to the Colorado River WS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Figure 3 shows the prediction skill of the models for different lead times (the same maps for all the lead times are shown in Figure S3). We obtain good correlation coefficients only when considering the shortest forecasts horizons (i.e., 0.5–2.5 months) during spring: this is because at many stations the selected model includes antecedent wetness conditions as an important predictor for the location parameter (see Figure S4; see also Neri, Villarini, Kaustubh, et al (2019) and Slater and Villarini (2017)), which means that observations are included in the forecasting as preconditioning for the season of interest. However, the prediction skill is lower for the other seasons, with no improvement as the forecast horizon shortens and with no area performing consistently better than others.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Similarly to Neri, Villarini, Kaustubh, Slater, and Napolitano (2019), we define different statistical models, each one assuming a different distribution function and a different relationship between its parameters and the three drivers (see Table 2), for a total of 22 models.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The flash flood events that caused property damage were randomly divided into two parts: training (85% of dataset) and testing (15% dataset). The result of the developed model are evaluated using two performance measures: correlation coefficient (R) and bias, both of which have been commonly used to measure the accuracy and performance of the ML models (Gavahi et al 2019, Neri et al 2019, Shastry and Durand 2019, Abbaszadeh et al 2019a. Here, the regression (i.e.…”
Section: Damage Prediction Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%