Search

This study presents a spatial and temporal climatology of major wildfire events, defined as >100 acres burned (>40.47 ha, where 1 ha = 2.47 acre), in the northeast United States from 1999 to 2009 and the meteorological conditions associated with these events. The northeast United States is divided into two regions: region 1 is centered over the higher terrain of the northeast United States and region 2 is primarily over the coastal plain. About 59% of all wildfire events in these two regions occur in April and May, with ~76% in region 1 and ~53% in region 2. There is large interannual variability in wildfire frequency, with some years having 4-5 times more fire events than other years. The synoptic flow patterns associated with northeast United States wildfires are classified using the North American Regional Reanalysis. The most common synoptic pattern for region 1 is a surface high pressure system centered over the northern Appalachians, which occurred in approximately 46% of all events. For region 2, the prehigh anticyclone type extending from southeast Canada and the Great Lakes to the northeast United States is the most common pattern, occurring in about 46% of all events. A trajectory analysis highlights the influence of large-scale subsidence and decreasing relative humidity during the events, with the prehigh pattern showing the strongest subsidence and downslope drying in the lee of the Appalachians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The performance of a multimodel ensemble over the northeast United States is evaluated before and after applying bias correction and Bayesian model averaging (BMA). The 13-member Stony Brook University (SBU) ensemble at 0000 UTC is combined with the 21-member National Centers for Environmental Pre-diction (NCEP) Short-Range Ensemble Forecast (SREF) system at 2100 UTC. The ensemble is verified using 2-m temperature and 10-m wind speed for the 2007-09 warm seasons, and for subsets of days with high ozone and high fire threat. The impacts of training period, bias-correction method, and BMA are explored for these potentially hazardous weather events using the most recent consecutive (sequential training) and most recent similar days (conditional training). BMA sensitivity to the selection of ensemble members is explored. A running mean difference between forecasts and observations using the last 14 days is better at removing temperature bias than is a cumulative distribution function (CDF) or linear regression approach. Wind speed bias is better removed by adjusting the modeled CDF to the observation. High fire threat and ozone days exhibit a larger cool bias and a greater negative wind speed bias than the warm-season average. Conditional bias correction is generally better at removing temperature and wind speed biases than sequential training. Greater probabilistic skill is found for temperature using both conditional bias correction and BMA com-pared to sequential bias correction with or without BMA. Conditional and sequential BMA results are similar for 10-m wind speed, although BMA typically improves probabilistic skill regardless of training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]