Reply to “Comments on ‘Flash Flood Verification: Pondering Precipitation Proxies

We applaud Gourley and Vergara for their thorough investigation of the relationship between precipitation and flash flood reports, as well as their inclusion of information from advanced hydrologic model output. We conducted some additional analysis to identify the reasons for the substantial differ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of hydrometeorology 2021-03, Vol.22 (3), p.749-752
Main Authors: Schumacher, Russ S., Herman, Gregory R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
CORRESPONDENCE
Datasets
Decision analysis
Flash flood warnings
Flash flooding
Flash floods
Flooding
Floods
Hydrologic models
Hydrology
Methods
Precipitation
Rain
Resolution
Temporal resolution
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-992931c5ab0e7ae185e77243e1cd4f5ae0e19ffe7fea15d91cda9696dd787a873
cites
container_end_page 752
container_issue 3
container_start_page 749
container_title Journal of hydrometeorology
container_volume 22
creator Schumacher, Russ S.
Herman, Gregory R.
description We applaud Gourley and Vergara for their thorough investigation of the relationship between precipitation and flash flood reports, as well as their inclusion of information from advanced hydrologic model output. We conducted some additional analysis to identify the reasons for the substantial differences between their findings and ours. The primary reason for the differences was found to be temporal sampling. The high temporal resolution of theMRMSdataset, as well as their use of “rolling” accumulation periods, explains most of the discrepancies. For guidance related to real-time warning decisions for flash flooding, Gourley and Vergara’s analyses provide an important new guide and we recommend the use of their results for this purpose. For other applications, including model postprocessing and for precipitation datasets with lower temporal resolution, our results will continue to prove useful.
doi_str_mv 10.1175/JHM-D-20-0275.1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2675717513</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27074435</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27074435</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-992931c5ab0e7ae185e77243e1cd4f5ae0e19ffe7fea15d91cda9696dd787a873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kM1KAzEUhYMoWKtrV8KA67S5yaSZLKW1VqkIouIuxJkbnDKd1GS66M7H6MKn80lMqXR1f_jOPdxDyCWwAYCSw4fZI51QzijjSg7giPRAckmVzOH40Mv3U3IW44IxlmsoekQ846rZZJ3Pfr9_xn65xLaLmW_TuJ02Nn5m08b7KnvDULu6tF3t23Ny4mwT8eK_9snr9PZlPKPzp7v78c2cllxDR7XmWkAp7QdDZREKiUrxXCCUVe6kRYagnUPl0IKsdFpbPdKjqlKFsoUSfXK9v7sK_muNsTMLvw5tsjR8pKRKX4NI1HBPlcHHGNCZVaiXNmwMMLNLxqRkzMRwZnbJGEiKq71iETsfDjhXTOW5kOIPz65g-Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2675717513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reply to “Comments on ‘Flash Flood Verification: Pondering Precipitation Proxies</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Schumacher, Russ S. ; Herman, Gregory R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schumacher, Russ S. ; Herman, Gregory R.</creatorcontrib><description>We applaud Gourley and Vergara for their thorough investigation of the relationship between precipitation and flash flood reports, as well as their inclusion of information from advanced hydrologic model output. We conducted some additional analysis to identify the reasons for the substantial differences between their findings and ours. The primary reason for the differences was found to be temporal sampling. The high temporal resolution of theMRMSdataset, as well as their use of “rolling” accumulation periods, explains most of the discrepancies. For guidance related to real-time warning decisions for flash flooding, Gourley and Vergara’s analyses provide an important new guide and we recommend the use of their results for this purpose. For other applications, including model postprocessing and for precipitation datasets with lower temporal resolution, our results will continue to prove useful.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1525-755X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-7541</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1175/JHM-D-20-0275.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: American Meteorological Society</publisher><subject>CORRESPONDENCE ; Datasets ; Decision analysis ; Flash flood warnings ; Flash flooding ; Flash floods ; Flooding ; Floods ; Hydrologic models ; Hydrology ; Methods ; Precipitation ; Rain ; Resolution ; Temporal resolution</subject><ispartof>Journal of hydrometeorology, 2021-03, Vol.22 (3), p.749-752</ispartof><rights>2021 American Meteorological Society</rights><rights>Copyright American Meteorological Society Mar 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-992931c5ab0e7ae185e77243e1cd4f5ae0e19ffe7fea15d91cda9696dd787a873</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27074435$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27074435$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,58216,58449</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schumacher, Russ S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herman, Gregory R.</creatorcontrib><title>Reply to “Comments on ‘Flash Flood Verification: Pondering Precipitation Proxies</title><title>Journal of hydrometeorology</title><description>We applaud Gourley and Vergara for their thorough investigation of the relationship between precipitation and flash flood reports, as well as their inclusion of information from advanced hydrologic model output. We conducted some additional analysis to identify the reasons for the substantial differences between their findings and ours. The primary reason for the differences was found to be temporal sampling. The high temporal resolution of theMRMSdataset, as well as their use of “rolling” accumulation periods, explains most of the discrepancies. For guidance related to real-time warning decisions for flash flooding, Gourley and Vergara’s analyses provide an important new guide and we recommend the use of their results for this purpose. For other applications, including model postprocessing and for precipitation datasets with lower temporal resolution, our results will continue to prove useful.</description><subject>CORRESPONDENCE</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Flash flood warnings</subject><subject>Flash flooding</subject><subject>Flash floods</subject><subject>Flooding</subject><subject>Floods</subject><subject>Hydrologic models</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Resolution</subject><subject>Temporal resolution</subject><issn>1525-755X</issn><issn>1525-7541</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kM1KAzEUhYMoWKtrV8KA67S5yaSZLKW1VqkIouIuxJkbnDKd1GS66M7H6MKn80lMqXR1f_jOPdxDyCWwAYCSw4fZI51QzijjSg7giPRAckmVzOH40Mv3U3IW44IxlmsoekQ846rZZJ3Pfr9_xn65xLaLmW_TuJ02Nn5m08b7KnvDULu6tF3t23Ny4mwT8eK_9snr9PZlPKPzp7v78c2cllxDR7XmWkAp7QdDZREKiUrxXCCUVe6kRYagnUPl0IKsdFpbPdKjqlKFsoUSfXK9v7sK_muNsTMLvw5tsjR8pKRKX4NI1HBPlcHHGNCZVaiXNmwMMLNLxqRkzMRwZnbJGEiKq71iETsfDjhXTOW5kOIPz65g-Q</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Schumacher, Russ S.</creator><creator>Herman, Gregory R.</creator><general>American Meteorological Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>Reply to “Comments on ‘Flash Flood Verification</title><author>Schumacher, Russ S. ; Herman, Gregory R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-992931c5ab0e7ae185e77243e1cd4f5ae0e19ffe7fea15d91cda9696dd787a873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>CORRESPONDENCE</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Flash flood warnings</topic><topic>Flash flooding</topic><topic>Flash floods</topic><topic>Flooding</topic><topic>Floods</topic><topic>Hydrologic models</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Resolution</topic><topic>Temporal resolution</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schumacher, Russ S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herman, Gregory R.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><jtitle>Journal of hydrometeorology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schumacher, Russ S.</au><au>Herman, Gregory R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reply to “Comments on ‘Flash Flood Verification: Pondering Precipitation Proxies</atitle><jtitle>Journal of hydrometeorology</jtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>749</spage><epage>752</epage><pages>749-752</pages><issn>1525-755X</issn><eissn>1525-7541</eissn><abstract>We applaud Gourley and Vergara for their thorough investigation of the relationship between precipitation and flash flood reports, as well as their inclusion of information from advanced hydrologic model output. We conducted some additional analysis to identify the reasons for the substantial differences between their findings and ours. The primary reason for the differences was found to be temporal sampling. The high temporal resolution of theMRMSdataset, as well as their use of “rolling” accumulation periods, explains most of the discrepancies. For guidance related to real-time warning decisions for flash flooding, Gourley and Vergara’s analyses provide an important new guide and we recommend the use of their results for this purpose. For other applications, including model postprocessing and for precipitation datasets with lower temporal resolution, our results will continue to prove useful.</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>American Meteorological Society</pub><doi>10.1175/JHM-D-20-0275.1</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1525-755X
ispartof Journal of hydrometeorology, 2021-03, Vol.22 (3), p.749-752
issn 1525-755X
1525-7541
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2675717513
source JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects CORRESPONDENCE
Datasets
Decision analysis
Flash flood warnings
Flash flooding
Flash floods
Flooding
Floods
Hydrologic models
Hydrology
Methods
Precipitation
Rain
Resolution
Temporal resolution
title Reply to “Comments on ‘Flash Flood Verification: Pondering Precipitation Proxies
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T01%3A09%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reply%20to%20%E2%80%9CComments%20on%20%E2%80%98Flash%20Flood%20Verification:%20Pondering%20Precipitation%20Proxies&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20hydrometeorology&rft.au=Schumacher,%20Russ%20S.&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=749&rft.epage=752&rft.pages=749-752&rft.issn=1525-755X&rft.eissn=1525-7541&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175/JHM-D-20-0275.1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27074435%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-992931c5ab0e7ae185e77243e1cd4f5ae0e19ffe7fea15d91cda9696dd787a873%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2675717513&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27074435&rfr_iscdi=true