Search

A wide variety of processes controls the time of occurrence, duration, extent, and severity of river floods. Classifying flood events by their causative processes may assist in enhancing the accuracy of local and regional flood frequency estimates and support the detection and interpretation of any changes in flood occurrence and magnitudes. This paper provides a critical review of existing causative classifications of instrumental and preinstrumental series of flood events, discusses their validity and applications, and identifies opportunities for moving toward more comprehensive approaches. So far no unified definition of causative mechanisms of flood events exists. Existing frameworks for classification of instrumental and preinstrumental series of flood events adopt different perspectives: hydroclimatic (large-scale circulation patterns and atmospheric state at the time of the event), hydrological (catchment scale precipitation patterns and antecedent catchment state), and hydrograph-based (indirectly considering generating mechanisms through their effects on hydrograph characteristics). All of these approaches intend to capture the flood generating mechanisms and are useful for characterizing the flood processes at various spatial and temporal scales. However, uncertainty analyses with respect to indicators, classification methods, and data to assess the robustness of the classification are rarely performed which limits the transferability across different geographic regions. It is argued that more rigorous testing is needed. There are opportunities for extending classification methods to include indicators of space-time dynamics of rainfall, antecedent wetness, and routing effects, which will make the classification schemes even more useful for understanding and estimating floods. This article is categorized under: Science of Water > Water Extremes Science of Water > Hydrological Processes Science of Water > Methods

The terdiurnal tide (TDT) in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere has been simulated with a 3D mechanistic circulation model of the middle atmosphere. The tidal temperature amplitude shows a clear seasonal cycle with peaks in the midlatitudes and near the equator at equinox. Under solstice conditions maximum amplitudes occur at 10° in the summer hemisphere and at 30-40° latitude in the winter hemisphere. The vertical wavelengths are large at midlatitudes and small at the equator with about 15 km. These characteristics are compared with SABER/TIMED satellite data from 2002-2009. Especially for temperature amplitudes good agreement is visible. At 90 km, comparison of the zonal wind TDT with radar observations from the literature also shows that the model realistically simulates the seasonal cycle of the TDT. Die achtstündige Gezeit (TDT) in der Mesosphäre und unteren Thermosphäre wurde mit einem 3D mechanistischen Zirkulationsmodell der mittleren Atmosphäre modelliert. Die Amplitude der achtstündigen Gezeit in der Temperatur zeigt dabei eine klare saisonale Variabilität mit Maxima im Bereich der mittleren Breiten und des Äquators während der Äquinoktien. Die vertikale Wellenlänge ist in den mittleren Breiten groß und am Äquator mit ca. 15 km klein. Diese Strukturen werden mit SABER/TIMED Satellitenmessungen der Jahre 2002-2009 verglichen. Vor allem für die Amplituden in der Temperatur ist eine gute Übereinstimmung zu erkennen. Ein Vergleich der achtstündigen Gezeit im Zonalwind in 90 km Höhe mit Radarmessungen aus der Literatur zeigt, dass das Modell den Jahresgang realistisch simuliert.

A wide variety of processes controls the time of occurrence, duration, extent, and severity of river floods. Classifying flood events by their causative processes may assist in enhancing the accuracy of local and regional flood frequency estimates and support the detection and interpretation of any changes in flood occurrence and magnitudes. This paper provides a critical review of existing causative classifications of instrumental and preinstrumental series of flood events, discusses their validity and applications, and identifies opportunities for moving toward more comprehensive approaches. So far no unified definition of causative mechanisms of flood events exists. Existing frameworks for classification of instrumental and preinstrumental series of flood events adopt different perspectives: hydroclimatic (large‐scale circulation patterns and atmospheric state at the time of the event), hydrological (catchment scale precipitation patterns and antecedent catchment state), and hydrograph‐based (indirectly considering generating mechanisms through their effects on hydrograph characteristics). All of these approaches intend to capture the flood generating mechanisms and are useful for characterizing the flood processes at various spatial and temporal scales. However, uncertainty analyses with respect to indicators, classification methods, and data to assess the robustness of the classification are rarely performed which limits the transferability across different geographic regions. It is argued that more rigorous testing is needed. There are opportunities for extending classification methods to include indicators of space–time dynamics of rainfall, antecedent wetness, and routing effects, which will make the classification schemes even more useful for understanding and estimating floods.