4.7 Article

Convection-permitting simulations reveal expanded rainfall extremes of tropical cyclones affecting South Korea due to anthropogenic warming

期刊

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41612-023-00509-w

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides the first quantification of anthropogenic influences on tropical cyclone characteristics affecting South Korea. It finds that human influences can intensify extreme precipitation induced by tropical cyclones, especially as they move towards mid-latitudes.
Understanding how global warming affects tropical cyclone (TC) intensity and precipitation for target regions is essential to preparing for associated damages but detailed processes remain uncertain. This study provides the first quantification of anthropogenic influences on TC characteristics affecting South Korea using convection-permitting model (CPM) simulations (3 km resolution). For the observed four recent TCs that strongly affected South Korea, CPM simulations were performed under current (ALL) and counterfactual conditions without human influences (NAT). The observed sea surface temperature and lateral boundary conditions were used for ALL while changes attributable to human influences (estimated using CMIP6 multimodel simulations) were removed from observed boundary conditions for NAT runs. ALL experiments captured the observed TC intensity and precipitation reasonably. After removing human influences, TC intensity and precipitation were reduced in NAT experiments. Importantly, areas with extreme precipitation (i.e., having precipitation larger than 150 mm) were found to expand by 16-37% in ALL compared to NAT, which was induced by an enhanced upward motion near the TC core and an increase of background water vapor in line with warming. Further, the role of increased moisture was found to become important as TC moves to mid-latitudes. This study provides valuable insights into how greenhouse warming can intensify TC-induced extreme precipitation over East Asia.

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