EGUsphere EGUsphere EGUsphere EGUsphere Copernicus Publications Göttingen, Germany 10.5194/egusphere-2026-5197 The ARTMIP Tier 2 Polar Synthesis: A comparative analysis of polar atmospheric river detection tools in historical and future climate states Mattingly Kyle S. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7384-0903 1 Maclennan Michelle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7591-2704 2 Schnaubelt Joseph https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0561-9104 3 Shields Christine 4 Baiman Rebecca 5 Massa Alexander Y. https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4350-9159 6 Nardi Kyle 4 Scholz Serena R. 7 Thaker Rudradutt https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5005-9000 1 Zhang Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7018-1164 8 Baek Seung H. 9 Braun Tobias 10 Buffet Victoire 11 Butler James 12 Dong Bo 13 Favier Vincent https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6024-9498 11 Gorodetskaya Irina https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-7823 14 Guan Bin 15 Kolbe Marlen 16 Lauer Melanie 17 Linscott Gabrielle 18 Lora Juan M. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9925-1050 7 Lu Mengqian https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8787-5621 19 Ma Weiming 20 Macarewich Sophia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6263-3044 4 Magnusdottir Gudrun https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6079-5886 21 O'Brien Travis A. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6643-1175 22 23 Tiedeck Sofie https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3027-2232 24 Vallejo-Bernal Sara M. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3134-0449 10 Viceto Carolina https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8841-263X 25 Wille Jonathan D. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3918-5204 26 Yang Jing 27 Zhang Zhenhai https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8459-4704 28 Zou Xun https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1620-3198 28 University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, United Kingdom University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA Boston University, Boston, MA, USA The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA University Leipzig, Saxonia, Germany Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA University of Porto, Matosinhos, Portugal University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA University of Indiana, Bloomington, IN, USA Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Potsdam, Germany University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA 30 10 2026 2026 1 59 Copyright: © 2026 Kyle S. Mattingly et al. 2026 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This article is available from https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-5197/ The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-5197/egusphere-2026-5197.pdf

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are the conduit for the majority of atmospheric moisture transport to the polar regions and influence the evolution of polar ice sheets and sea ice. Their impacts on the polar cryosphere are expected to intensify as atmospheric moisture content and temperatures increase in a warming climate. Previous Atmospheric River Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP) studies show that quantitative and qualitative conclusions about the global climatology, impacts, and future changes of ARs depend on the choice of AR detection tool (ARDT) used in the analysis. There is a community need for a similar comparison of ARDTs in the polar regions (both the Arctic and Antarctica), where the unique atmospheric conditions require different parameters for AR detection relative to global ARDTs.</p> <p>Here, we present the ARTMIP polar synthesis experiment, a collaborative effort to provide community guidance on best practices for ARDT selection in polar studies. We build upon the existing ARTMIP framework to curate and compare AR catalogues from eleven ARDTs that have been developed for polar AR identification. We first analyze Arctic and Antarctic AR climatology across ARDTs in the historical record using MERRA-2 atmospheric reanalysis, focusing on similarities and differences among ARDTs linked to their algorithm design, and the effect of inter-ARDT differences on AR-attributed ice sheet and sea ice impacts. We then extend our analysis to future AR projections by applying a subset of ARDTs to three representative members of the CESM2 large ensemble under the SSP3-7.0 emissions scenario up to the year 2099. Finally, we use a subset of five ARDTs in a case study to assess the sensitivity of existing ARDTs to changes in detection thresholds.</p> <p>Our results show that polar ARDTs can generally be grouped into two categories based on their detection of AR frequency and impacts: (1) "global heritage" ARDTs that were originally developed for global AR studies and subsequently tuned for polar AR detection; and (2) "Antarctic heritage" ARDTs that were developed from inception for AR detection in the interior of Antarctica. The global heritage ARDTs generally show polar AR frequency and impacts that peak in the oceanic storm tracks of both the Northern and Southern hemispheres and decrease toward the poles, with little to no ARs identified in the interior of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The Antarctic heritage ARDTs, conversely, show a less pronounced meridional gradient in AR detection in both hemispheres, and attribute a substantial proportion of precipitation in the Antarctic interior to ARs. Global heritage ARDTs show a large spread in future AR projections due to their varied algorithm design parameters, while Antarctic heritage ARDTs show greater cross-algorithm consistency in projecting small increases in AR frequency. Our polar synthesis leads us to recommend that researchers carefully consider their research questions and study region when choosing which ARDT(s) to use, and following the guidance from previous ARTMIP experiments, we recommend using multiple ARDTs to constrain uncertainty related to AR detection where possible.

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 80NSSC24K1043