2020
DOI: 10.5194/esd-11-435-2020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Historical and future anthropogenic warming effects on droughts, fires and fire emissions of CO<sub>2</sub> and PM<sub>2.5</sub> in equatorial Asia when 2015-like El Niño events occur

Abstract: Abstract. In 2015, El Niño contributed to severe droughts in equatorial Asia (EA). The severe droughts enhanced fire activity in the dry season (June–November), leading to massive fire emissions of CO2 and aerosols. Based on large event attribution ensembles of the MIROC5 atmospheric global climate model, we suggest that historical anthropogenic warming increased the chances of meteorological droughts exceeding the 2015 observations in the EA area. We also investigate changes in drought in future climate simul… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our estimate is smaller than that of GFED, but still comparable to the latest Japanese inventory (338 TgC yr −1 for 2018 (GIO and MOE, 2020)). Using an atmospheric climate model, Shiogama et al (2020) projected that Equatorial Asia would experience stronger droughts than that in 2015 in a future warmer climate condition. To reduce fire-induced carbon emissions from such drought events, chances of ignition must be reduced.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our estimate is smaller than that of GFED, but still comparable to the latest Japanese inventory (338 TgC yr −1 for 2018 (GIO and MOE, 2020)). Using an atmospheric climate model, Shiogama et al (2020) projected that Equatorial Asia would experience stronger droughts than that in 2015 in a future warmer climate condition. To reduce fire-induced carbon emissions from such drought events, chances of ignition must be reduced.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They have been used to create an observational large ensemble (McKinnon et al, 2017;McKinnon and Deser, 2018) and test dynamical adjustment techniques (Deser et al, 2016;Lehner et al, 2017). They have also been used to develop new methodologies such as utilising the ensemble dimension for analysis (Herein et al, 2017;Maher et al, 2018Maher et al, , 2019Haszpra et al, 2020a, b) and to develop and test statistical methods for isolating the forced response (Sippel et al, 2020;Wills et al, 2020). Such ensembles have additionally provided important information for policy makers, such as whether emission reductions are likely to be detectable in the coming years, or whether they could be masked by internal variability (Lehner et al, 2016;Tebaldi and Wehner, 2018;Marotzke, 2019;Spring and Ilyina, 2020).…”
Section: An Introduction To Smilesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 50-member simulations of MIROC6-LE are sufficient to analyze differences in regional T and T x changes between ssp126 and ssp119 (scenarios relevant to the 2 • C and 1.5 • C goals of the Paris Agreement) but not sufficient to obtain significant differences in P and P x changes over more than half of the world. Atmospheric global climate models (AGCMs) are more cost-effective tools to produce large ensembles (e.g., 100 members) for future climate change projections at given warming levels and for event attribution studies than CGCMs, while AGCM simulations can only inform projections and attribution statements conditionally with respect to prescribed SST patterns (Shiogama et al, 2016(Shiogama et al, , 2020Mizuta et al, 2017;Mitchell et al, 2017;Imada et al, 2017;Stone et al, 2019;Fujita et al, 2020;Nosaka et al, 2021). Combined analyses of AGCM LEs (e.g., Mitchell et al, 2017;Shiogama et al, 2019b) and CGCM LEs could be useful for discussions of differences in precipitation changes between the 2 • C and 1.5 • C warmer climates, but it should be noted that climate change projections can be significantly different between AGCM and CGCM simulations (Uhe et al, 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%