4.3 Article

Changes in the relationship between Northeast China summer temperature and ENSO

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2010JD014422

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [ATM-0830068]
  2. NOAA [NA09OAR4310058, NA09OAR4310186]
  3. NASA [NNX09AN50G]
  4. Governor's Foundation of Jilin Province of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] Northeast China (NEC) summer temperature tends to be lower (higher) than normal in El Nino (La Nina) developing years during 1950s through mid-1970s. The relationship between the NEC summer temperature and El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is weakened or even becomes opposite in 1980s and 1990s. The present study documents this interdecadal change and investigates plausible reasons for this change. Before the late 1970s, ENSO affects the NEC summer temperature through modulating the South Asian heating and consequently the midlatitude Asian circulation. After the late 1970s, the connection between ENSO and the Indian summer monsoon and that between the South Asian heating and the midlatitude Asian circulation have been weakened. This leads to a weakening of ENSO impacts on the NEC summer temperature. It is found that the NEC summer temperature variations are closely related to the North Atlantic sea surface temperature (SST) and circulation changes in 1980s and 1990s. In particular, a tripole North Atlantic SST anomaly pattern in boreal spring is a good precursory for the NEC summer temperature anomalies. The NEC summer temperature displays a negative correlation with the summer SST surrounding the Maritime Continent in 1980s and 1990s. In many years, the tropical North Pacific and the North Atlantic SST anomalies can contribute in concert to the midlatitude Asian circulation changes and the NEC summer temperature anomalies. These effects overcome those of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific SST anomalies, leading to a same-sign relationship between the NEC summer temperature and the central and eastern equatorial Pacific SST anomalies.

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

4.3
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