Researchers document global connections between El Nino events and drought

El Nino
The 1997 El Nino seen by TOPEX/Poseidon. Credit: NASA

A team of researchers recently discovered that global climate change is causing general increases in both plant growth and potential drought risk.

University of Montana Professor John Kimball is among the team of researchers who published an article on Oct. 30 about their study on Scientific Reports magazine's website titled "Vegetation Greening and Climate Change Promote Multidecadal Rises of Global Land Evapotranspiration."

Their research shows that during the past 32 years there have been widespread increases in both plant growth and evaporation due to recent global climate trends. The apparent rise in evapotranspiration - the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from plants and soil - is increasing potential drought risk with rising temperature trends, especially during periodic drought cycles that have been linked with strong El Nino events. El Nino is a disruption of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tropical Pacific with important consequences for weather around the globe.

The researchers produced a long-term global satellite record of land evapotranspiration using remote sensing satellite data. They investigated multi-decadal changes looking at trends between 1982 and 2013. In addition to global evapotranspiration trends, they examined vegetation greenness and general climate data including temperature, precipitation and cloudiness. Collectively, these data show general increasing trends in both and evaporation with recent mainly driven by vegetation greening and rising atmosphere moisture deficits.

The study predicts that a continuation of these trends will likely exacerbate regional drought-induced disturbances, especially during regional dry climate phases associated with strong El Nino events.


Explore further

How does El Nino warm the entire globe?

More information: Ke Zhang et al. Vegetation Greening and Climate Change Promote Multidecadal Rises of Global Land Evapotranspiration, Scientific Reports (2015). DOI: 10.1038/srep15956
Journal information: Scientific Reports

Citation: Researchers document global connections between El Nino events and drought (2015, November 2) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-11-document-global-el-nino-events.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
18 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 02, 2015
The study is open access and an interesting read.

http://www.nature...rep15956

Nov 07, 2015
You mark me 1/5, I mark you 1/5...what could be fairer than that??

Nov 07, 2015
You mark me 1/5, I mark you 1/5...what could be fairer than that??

Fair?

He dug up the study for us all to read which is a valuable effort and you just downmark that? That's beyond petty.

Nov 07, 2015
You mark me 1/5, I mark you 1/5...what could be fairer than that??

1 is 1 more than the IQ of vietvet. You don't want to stoop to the level of that degenerate, but rather offer him your pity, since he was the unfortunate victim of Agent Orange abuse, perpetrated by the very government he trusted. Sadly, his only "useful" purpose now, is to troll this forum.

Nov 07, 2015
"He dug up the study for us.."

I do the same on a range of issues he has no interest in at all, but he has gone down the list of all my comments on all subjects and marked them 1/5. I am returning the favour.

Personally, I am owner & administrator of 14 science based groups in Yahoo! and Facebook with over 370,000 members and post links to physorg articles every day and occasionally comment on one or two as well. Every time I do they are marked down to 1/5. I discovered that Vietvet was doing it and in areas such as psychiatry and psychology in which he has no interest.

So if he keeps doing it, I will keep doing it. Petty, yes, but I must either endure his pettiness of fight back in whatever manner is (legally) open to me.

Nov 07, 2015
Thank you for the link, Vietvet!

Nov 07, 2015
@RobertKarlStonjek

In the past I've given you an occasional "5" though I found you to be pompous, figuring you spoke with some kind of authority.

After you made some horribly ignorant comments about slavery in America and you didn't acknowledge it when I pointed out your gross ignorance, I wanted to know where your "authority"came from.

A google search quickly turned up an article of you telling a court that you had no authority and
fining you $5,000.

You are not an authority despite how many forums you host and you have never published a peer reviewed study.

http://phys.org/n...ial.html

Nov 07, 2015
"Justice Pearce said Stonjek had no formal academic qualifications and no affiliation with any academic institution."

"He said to the extent that Stonjek's paper relied on the child exploitation material in his possession, the paper was the "antithesis" of genuine science."

http://www.examin...r-fined/

Nov 07, 2015
First, I make no claim to have formal qualifications. Thus I am not a 'fraud'.

I am widely read, friendly with many professors including some of the most renowned in the world (character references were read out in court from Napolean Chagnon, Helen Fisher, Stan Franklin and other professors) and the judge said that the material was downloaded for research and not sexual gratification.

Second, in around approx. 20 times you were the loan person to score my posts you scored 1/5 on all of them, every single one.

All of my research material and all of my computers including all copies of the paper were confiscated and not returned to me until after the trial, thus I had to rewrite the paper from memory only. How good could it be without the material and notes upon which it is based? Note that the computers were returned after the trial, I am using (parts of) one of them right now.

I can see which messages you score. I will stop for now unless or until you continue.

Nov 07, 2015
@RobertKarlStonjek

Are you ever going to admit your comments on slavery were wrong on every point?

Nov 07, 2015
I don't recall the conversation except that I made one error which I later corrected ie I said that not all southern states engaged in slavery it should have been 'not all southern states engaged in plantation-industrial slavery'. In some states slavery extended to only domestic slaves as it did in two states that aligned themselves with the north. President Lincoln stopped that.

There was also taking and selling of slaves by the north early in the war.

These are points from books on the subject, it is not my opinion.

The interesting thing is that the north was not entirely free of slavery and the south was not all plantations and industrial slavery, some states had domestic slaves only.

I don't see what the objection is, but if you want references I could dig them out and you can take it up with the authors.

Nov 07, 2015
I don't recall the conversation except that I made one error which I later corrected ie I said that not all southern states engaged in slavery it should have been 'not all southern states engaged in plantation-industrial slavery'. In some states slavery extended to only domestic slaves as it did in two states that aligned themselves with the north. President Lincoln stopped that.

Wrong, wrong ,wrong.

Review your comments at: http://phys.org/n...ial.html

Every state in the Confederacy made extensive use of slavery in agriculture (and mining). Your contention that any slave state only used slaves as domestics is tragically laughable. Kentucky had vast plantations but remained in the Union. Missouri and Maryland, while having a lower percentage of slaves per capita, also used slaves in agriculture and as hired out laborers.

TBC.

.

Nov 07, 2015
Cont.

Delaware's slave population was less than 2% of the total and most were in the southern part of the state---and used in agriculture.

The Emancipation Declaration only applied to the Confederacy. The "North" had no slavery and slavery remained legal in the Border states until passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

Slaves were expensive but not so expensive that they were out of reach for people of modest means. Two of my ancestors were preachers and they owned slaves. I'll refer you again to the 1860 slave census:http://www.civil-...sus.html

I don't know which books you read but but there are plenty written by apologists for slavery.

Nov 08, 2015
Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware sided with the Union and were slave states.
In 1860, Missouri had 114,931 slaves, Kentucky 225,483, Maryland 87,189 and Delaware 1,798.

In the North, New Jersey is listed as have 18 slaves in 1860.

I don't recall which book had the references to slavery that I quoted but I remembered it in particular because it was so surprising, especially the taking of slaves a war booty which were later sold by union soldiers in the early part of the war.

There is a reference to that in this book:
https://books.goo...;f=false

and I found other references to that practice.

Nov 10, 2015
"He dug up the study for us.."

I do the same on a range of issues he has no interest in at all, but he has gone down the list of all my comments on all subjects and marked them 1/5. I am returning the favour.

Personally, I am owner & administrator of 14 science based groups in Yahoo! and Facebook with over 370,000 members and post links to physorg articles every day and occasionally comment on one or two as well. Every time I do they are marked down to 1/5. I discovered that Vietvet was doing it and in areas such as psychiatry and psychology in which he has no interest.

So if he keeps doing it, I will keep doing it. Petty, yes, but I must either endure his pettiness of fight back in whatever manner is (legally) open to me.


He does the same to me. He's a member of the troll-rating cabal and usually hides under his desk. Send phys.org a request to disable ratings.

Nov 10, 2015
Debate is healthy and we learn from it. One of the books I read turned out to be wrong on several issues for which I can thank Vietvet for pointing this out to me. We are all human and humans are notorious error makers.

But we must keep our heads and debate in a civil manner, learn and be ready to be falsified (this is the cornerstone of science; religionists believe in absolute truths).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more