Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 186

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The role of upper‐level dynamics and surface processes for the Pakistan flood of July 2010

Open access
Martius, O., Sodemann, H., Joos, H., Pfahl, S., Winschall, A., Croci‐Maspoli, M., Graf, M., Madonna, E., Mueller, B., Schemm, S., Sedláček, J., Sprenger, M., Wernli, H.·2013·Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

Abstract

In July and August 2010 floods of unprecedented impact afflicted Pakistan. The floods resulted from a series of intense multi‐day precipitation events in July and early August. At the same time a series of blocking anticyclones dominated the upper‐level flow over western Russia and breaking waves i.e. equatorward extrusions of stratospheric high potential vorticity (PV) air formed along the downstream flank of the blocks. Previous studies suggested that these extratropical upper‐level breaking waves were crucial for instigating the precipitation events in Pakistan. Here a detailed analysis is provided of the extratropical forcing of the precipitation. Piecewise PV inversion is used to quantify the extratropical upper‐level forcing associated with the wave breaking and trajectories are calculated to study the pathways and source regions of the moisture that precipitated over Pakistan. Limited‐area model simulations are carried out to complement the Lagrangian analysis. The precipitation events over Pakistan resulted from a combination of favourable boundary conditions with strong extratropical and monsoonal forcing factors. Above‐normal sea‐surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean led to an elevated lower‐tropospheric moisture content. Surface monsoonal depressions ensured the transport of moist air from the ocean towards northeastern Pakistan. Along this pathway the air parcel humidity increased substantially (60–90% of precipitated moisture) via evapotranspiration from the land surface. Extratropical breaking waves influenced the surface wind field substantially by enhancing the wind component directed towards the mountains which reinforced the precipitation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/qj.2082

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 186

Metadata

Authors
Martius, O., Sodemann, H., Joos, H., Pfahl, S., Winschall, A., Croci‐Maspoli, M., Graf, M., Madonna, E., Mueller, B., Schemm, S., Sedláček, J., Sprenger, M., & Wernli, H.
Venue
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-12-12
Volume
139
Issue
676
Pages
1780-1797
ISSN
  • 0035-9009 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-870X
OpenAlex
W1497111451
Cited by
186
References
1
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The role of upper‐level dynamics and surface processes for the Pakistan flood of July 2010. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/qj.2082
The paper
Martius, O., Sodemann, H., Joos, H., Pfahl, S., Winschall, A., Croci‐Maspoli, M., Graf, M., Madonna, E., Mueller, B., Schemm, S., Sedláček, J., Sprenger, M., & Wernli, H. (2013). The role of upper‐level dynamics and surface processes for the Pakistan flood of July 2010. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2082

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.