4.7 Article

On the Causes and Dynamics of the Early Twentieth-Century North American Pluvial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 24, 期 19, 页码 5043-5060

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2011JCLI4201.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NA08OAR4320912, NA10OAR4310137]
  2. NSF [ATM-06-20066, ATMO9-02716]
  3. NASA
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [0902716] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The early twentieth-century North American pluvial (1905-17) was one of the most extreme wet periods of the last 500 yr and directly led to overly generous water allotments in the water-limited American west. Here, the causes and dynamics of the pluvial event are examined using a combination of observation-based datasets and general circulation model (GCM) experiments. The character of the moisture surpluses during the pluvial differed by region, alternately driven by increased precipitation (the Southwest), low evaporation from cool temperatures (the central plains), or a combination of the two (the Pacific Northwest). Cool temperature anomalies covered much of the West and persisted through most months, part of a globally extensive period of cooler land and sea surface temperatures (SST). Circulation during boreal winter favored increased moisture import and precipitation in the Southwest, while other regions and seasons were characterized by near-normal or reduced precipitation. Anomalies in the mean circulation, precipitation, and SST fields are partially consistent with the relatively weak El Nino forcing during the pluvial and, also, reflect the impacts of positive departures in the Arctic Oscillation that occurred in 10 of the 13 pluvial winters. Differences between the reanalysis dataset, an independent statistical drought model, and GCM simulations highlight some of the remaining uncertainties in understanding the full extent of SST forcing of North American hydroclimatic variability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据